Talk:Disemvoweling/Archive 20 June 2006

This is an archive of past discussions about Disemvoweling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

TNH, not to worry, you're not the only compulsive rewriter here. You should see some my my stuff. - pk (PKM 03:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC))

Contractions & example

If we are going to give an example of this, then let's please mark it as an example. Also, contractions are great for informal writing, but an encyclopedia is not the place for them. -Will Beback 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Marky48's paragraph

Marky48 added this:

As with any forum monitoring technique the decison to use it is subjective. It may be called for by popular vote by members disenchanted with certain positions taken by a poster from outside the coummunity. This is not necessarily trollery by definition. The sentence of disemvowelment is then invoked as an appeasement whether warranted in substance, or not. Moreover, without knowledge a priori of the "local custom" by visitors no matter how long they've been contributing to the forum. It's an Internet form of publish banishment favored by the Puritans in the 1600s.

I've removed it.

The first sentence, I think, is a reasonable point. I would have left it if it had made sense in context, but it didn't. The second would need evidence to back up the assertion that the technique is used that way. The third assumes that "trollery" is the only thing it is designed to discourage -- as many forums have ground rules other than "no trolling" it is clear that it could be used for a variety of purposes. The fourth is making assumptions about the motives of site operators that seem spurious to me. The fifth doesn't make sense to me; I think it is missing some words. The sixth is blatantly ridiculous and clearly an attack on the concept.

-- I've removed the paragraph cited here since it was reinstated; it's a paragraph of pointed and less than neutral nonsequiters, including an ahistorical reference to Puritans DigitalMedievalist 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I wonder whether this has anything to do with his comments?

And he was crticising other editors for their bias on Talk:Barbara Bauer. JulesH 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to removing it as unsourced POV. I do object to all the other unsourced POV in the article. For example:

Disemvoweling has since turned out to be a surprisingly effective tool for maintaining order in online venues. For some reason, the fact that their text is still present, even in severely altered form, seems to baffle trolls' normal impulses.

How do we know this? I think the article should be heavily trimmed. There's too much editorializing. The fact that the article was written by the putative inventor of the technique may be a factor. -Will Beback 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Unfortunately, there isn't much information about this that has been published in appropriate sources. I have seen the technique work myself, so I subjectively know what TNH has written about it here to be true, but if we start deleting things only because there are no independent sources for it, we might as well delete the entire article. Which would be a shame, because I feel it is a useful resource as it stands. I deleted what Marky48 wrote because it was unsourced and sounded incorrect to me.

I have seen an independent objective review of forum moderation techniques. Unfortunately, it was too old to include disemvowelling. I'd like to see an up-to-date review that includes it, but as far as I'm aware there isn't one. It's a minority technique, and a recent innovation, which makes finding information about it hard. JulesH 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

TNH did not understand the need for verifiability in this project. We should find whatever sources there are and summarize what they say. I know that makes it tough to cover internet topics, but we don't have to cover everythihg. -Will Beback 21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored it back. Just because a self-interested partisan in an Internet squabble among writers doesn't understand an inclusion doesn't mean it isn't valid. JulesH hear me loud and clear: remove it again and it is you that will be removed from Wikipedia. Bank on it. This is personal.Marky48 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Marky48, please don't "make it personal". We're not talking about you, or your mother. We're talking about an encyclopedia article about a technique for managing Internet forums. Nothing could be less personal. Unlike Internet forums, civility is a requirement at Wikipedia. As we've been discussing here, this material needs more sources. Yours too. The paragraph you added sems to be an opinion rather than a fact. Opinions should be attributed to a notable source ("Bill Gates has called disemvowelling a scourge upon literacy" or something like that.) -Will Beback 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that the article was written by the putative inventor of the technique may be a factor." Boy Howdy. And these folks showing up are her fandom. They group-trolled me here. I've looked for unbiased sources and can't find any other than random comments along the line of 'What did they do to deserve that? So we can avoid it.' Often no one can tell what they did wrong. In short, it's a cultism and the communities, fragile and overly sensitive. Forum moderators like it because they can humiliate the offender and appease the community who are often of one mind on an issue and on the warpath. The source is the troll wiki. Moreover, there is no mention of banning in relation to it. I'm a source of personal testimony that it was a prelude to banning for advocating restraint on a smear campaign by a popular forum. These people are all members. It was a classic bandwagoning. And I post with my real name, email address and blog so I'm not anonymous when the battle comes my way. They are though and this is what makes the community a group-troll. A case in point:

"wonder whether this has anything to do with his comments?
And he was crticising other editors for their bias on Talk:Barbara Bauer." Marky48 02:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark:

And these folks showing up are her fandom. They group-trolled me here.

I think the only trolling is your unfounded negative comments. On what basis, precisely, do you think it's reasonable to compare removing the vowels from offensive posts on a message board to the behaviour of 17th century Puritans? You won't convince me that that comment was meant to be anything other than incendiary. You have repeatedly been offensive to me and others here and on Talk:Barbara Bauer. You accuse us of being biased and in almost the same breath add negative comments about a forum moderation technique that has been used on you. What are you expecting? For the record, I don't consider myself to be part of Teresa Nielsen Hayden's "fandom". I read her blog, yes. That doesn't make me a fan.

I've looked for unbiased sources and can't find any other than random comments along the line of 'What did they do to deserve that? So we can avoid it.'

I've discussed the difficulty of finding sources below. This technique is a fairly new innovation and not widely discussed outside of a narrow band of people, most of whom have used the technique. And I did a fairly extensive search for sources the other day, and didn't find anything like the reaction you describe. It seems from an examination of cases where the technique is used that people are generally less confused about what the offender did wrong than when other techniques are used (such as outright deletion of content) which general lead to a lot of confusion.

I'm a source of personal testimony that it was a prelude to banning for advocating restraint on a smear campaign by a popular forum.

Mark, your comments on Making Light are still visible and quite readable to anyone willing to make the effort. The link's in my comment above. You can't hope to convince us that you were simply advocating restraint; the tone of the messages is offensive and sarcastic, and the kind of message that is likely to cause an argument. Any cautious forum moderator is likely to take some action against you for behaving like that. It's the best way of keeping the forum working smoothly; that's the entire point of moderation. I can't comment on your banning (if indeed you were; an ongoing problem on the same site suggests the moderators there are reluctant to ban people, if indeed they even have the technical capability of doing so -- I'm not sure), but that is a separate matter. Moderation tools are often used in combination with one another to provide an escalation of responses as the seriousness of the offending commentor's behaviour increases, and I'm sure there is a separate article here about that particular tool.

And I post with my real name, email address and blog so I'm not anonymous when the battle comes my way. They are though and this is what makes the community a group-troll.

So anonymity is enough to make someone a troll now? BTW - I might not use my full name when I post on Making Light, but many of the others that you seem to have taken exception to do (e.g. Karen Funk Blocher, Anne Sheller, etc.) but I do at least use the name I commonly known by (I don't see any reason you'd benefit from knowing my surname) and I do provide a working e-mail address in my comments. I don't have a blog, so can't direct you to one.

A case in point:

"wonder whether this has anything to do with his comments? And he was crticising other editors for their bias on Talk:Barbara Bauer."

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Mark. I was pointing out that as a poster whose comments have been disemvowelled in the past, you are quite likely to be biased about the technique. I then point out that you criticised other posters for being biased in another thread, and leave the implication that you are somewhat hypocritical hanging, unsaid until now. Is there some flaw in my logic here? JulesH 12:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"the kind of message that is likely to cause an argument." Heaven forfend! An argument mind you. We can't have that in online discourse can we? Please can't we be of one mind on everything? Give me a break. Your logic is hopelessly flawed and biased toward the group you belong to. My offensive post at ML was about the revered Jenna Glatzer wigging out to me by email, so I could very well understand the same thing could have happened to Cordray. I was then assaulted by Absolutewriters en masse just as in the past. Fighting back isn't allowed though, but the group gets a pass. Yeah pardon me for not wanting to live in such an oppressive environment. Sounds like Hussein land to me. Good riddance to all of it.Marky48 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Argument was clearly the wrong word. Perhaps I should have called it a flaming match. Please do not accuse me of bias and in the same breath lie about what your post was about -- it is still readable to all. It read "take a flying leap." Now, frankly, I don't much care about the context of that comment. That kind of comment is just unacceptable in a civilised forum. And if you had "fought back" with logical argument and a rebuttal of points that were incorrect, I doubt anyone would have had a problem with your behaviour. JulesH 23:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Finding sources

OK, I've been looking for general sources on disemvowelling. I'm ignoring everything that directly quotes TNH as a primary source, since we're supposed to be looking for secondary sources here.

The best I've found is this [1].

Cramer describes at the top of the page how she doesn't use disemvowelling, so is clearly reporting on other people's experiences of it. She then goes on to make similar statements to some of the ones we have in the article here, including the one quoted above.

Still, it isn't really a reliable source according to wikipedia's policies on verification. I don't know where to get anything better, though. JulesH 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thakns so much for hunting. I think that under the circumstnace this article should be compacted down to the first paragraph giving a description of the process, and leave the rest out. None of the other material is reliable, and it is frankly just TNH's personal essay. -Will Beback 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this one, but it seems to me that the problematic section is the part in the middle. The beginning (this exists, it came about on this date, and was named in print shortly afterward) seems okay, except that the who-named-it-when could probably be tightened to "and received the name disemvoweling (or disemvoweling) shortly thereafter." The later bit, about scripts to carry it out, seems relevant and useful. Whether it's effective, fair, etc., could reasonably be replaced with something like, "As might be expected, its use is somewhat controversial, especially for those whose text is so altered." Just a drive-by suggestion, folks. If it were up to me, I'd probably leave it alone, but I understand the concern being raised here. Karen 06:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've done some editing on it. I've severely shortened the paragraph about its benefits and phrased it more neutrally, and linked to the site I mentioned above. I've reorganised the article into sections, and moved the information about the MT plugins into an 'external links' section. I think it's looking a lot better now. If someone knows how to work the new-style references system, we should move the link I've put in the body to be a reference, but I don't have time to figure it out right now. JulesH 10:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought... if Arthur Hlavaty has "used the term in print", that might form a useful source for this article, even if only for the statement that he was the first to use it in print which is still unsourced. Anyone know where/when he did this, and what he said about it? JulesH 10:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking a deep breath.... I have no problem in principle with Mark's latest edit, at long as it's in addition to the other link previously removed, rather than instead of. That way the article acknowledges two points of view without taking sides. Just one tweak, though: "disemvoweling leads to banishing" is by no means an inevitabilty. Something like "disemvoweling is often a prelude to banishment" would be more accurate. Regards to all. Karen 05:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly have no object to including anything uncontentious like that, even unsourced... it seems self-evident enough to just state it. Perhaps "In cases where a poster persists in the behaviour which earned them their disemvowelment, other harsher penalties (such as comment deletion or banning) usually follow"? JulesH 13:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, having actually looked at the link rather than just assuming it was how it was described, I'm not so sure I'm willing to let it stand; the description completely misrepresents what is said in the article. See my summary of the problems with it at the bottom of the page. JulesH 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

-

Okay, I've been doing some reading, via a Google search for "dsmvwlng." I haven't found anything that magically solves the conflict, but here are a couple of things worth looking at:

Exhibit A. Post "why sxsw?" on Many 2 Many, a group weblog on social software.[2] Liz Lawley warned in her post that people would be disemvoweled if not civil. Comment #5, a pseudonymous one which was not initially disemvoweled, per comment 6, now looks like this:

Strtgclly, f y wr ntrstd n hlpng crt gndr blnc, rthr thn slf-jstfyngly lmntng th lck f t, y shld hv ttndd tch. Mks sns, n? t lds n t sspct ths s bt "my prty ws mr fbls thn yr prty" rthr thn nythng sbstntv.

In comment 6, Lawley objects to what she considers a gratuitous swipe: the use of the term "self-justifyingly." She again asks, "Try to stay civil, okay?" In comments 7 and 8, other people politely address the substance of comment 5. Comment 9 expands on comment 5, under a different name but in the exact same vein, only nastier:

f brkng th cycl rqrs ch lvl t ctvly ncld mrgnlzd ppltns, whr s th trch prgrm t ncld dwrvs, spstcs, th hmlss, schzs, nd thr vrd vcs, nd t wht pnt n ths ccphny d y sy t yrslf "w hv chvd qty!"?

Five comments later, after one more comment by name #2, Lawley announces that she has learned the two "trolls" are the same person, and disemvowels them.

This thread can be seen two ways. 1. Everyone treated the person with the divergent viewpoint civilly, but the combination of offensive reference to "dwarves and spastics" in a straw man argument and the use of a sockpuppet then led to disemvowelment. Or, 2. "Transom/Tristan" was disemvoweled after only 3 comments, and no profanity that I noticed. However, I'm not as good at reading the text as some people are, so I may have missed something.

Exhibit B: I know we aren't looking to make this article The TNH Show, but I found this quote from her[3] interesting, in light of Mark's claims:

13. If someone you've disemvowelled comes back and behaves, forgive and forget their earlier gaffes. You're acting in the service of civility, not abstract justice.

So in theory, it is possible to recover fully from a disemvoweling, if Teresa (or any other forum moderator) lives up to that comment. Whether this actually happens is something that probably requires further research.

Regards to all. Karen 03:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Marky48's comments

"It's an Internet form of publish banishment favored by the Puritans in the 1600s." This is exactly what it is ahistorical or not. Banished from the colony worked identically. Disemvowlement is pre-bannishment public humiliation. Perhaps you've heard of The Stocks. Many things are not only unsourced, they don't even explain the conditions that warrant this treatment? All of these people cam straight from absolutewrite and Making Light and all of this is over the smearing of James Cordray. They just followed me here like trolls are apt to do. An encyclopedia should have sort of criteria for who deserves to be in it and why. This really streches the concept in my view.Marky48 00:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the concept of wikipedia, go elsewhere. The fact is, we can't include your sentence because it doesn't make any sense. Disemvowelment is not "publish banishment", whatever that happens to mean. It isn't banishment in any sense; it is merely a technique for removing offensive comments from a discussion forum. It isn't intended to ridicule any more than editing a comment and leaving a message saying 'this message deleted for (reason)' is, and in my experience that is the most common method used for the purpose. In fact, disemvowelling seems to me to be inherently fairer; it allows other visitors of the site to read your text if they want, and make their own minds up as to whether you were treated unfairly. For the record, I don't care one bit about Cordray. I came here because of your destructive edits and personal attacks on the Barbar Bauer page; I wanted to make sure you weren't doing the same kind of vandalism on other articles. It turned out you were. Now, just go away and take your personal attacks with you. We'll concentrate on the job of writing an encyclopedia that doesn't include your petty, biased opinions. JulesH 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like added context go elsewhere yourself. It is indeed "public" banishment. Everyone who gets disemvoweled gets banned. It's merely a pre-lude which the group gleefully ridicules the outcast like any lynch mob, even after they're banned and can't respond. I don't care about Cordray either, except indictment should require facts no matter who it is.

"It turned out you were." Editing is not vandalism. What constitutes offensive comments is open for debate, and that's what I'm doing. Take a flying leap. Troll.Marky48 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, let's keep things cool. We're here to write an article. Our jobs as Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Disemvoewlling may indeed be like banishment or the stockade, but we should not make that decision on our own. Rather, we should find those reliable sources who have characterized and summarize whatver they said. -Will Beback 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Brad DeLong link

Marky48 added:

Brad Delong [[4]]discusses the reasons for employing this treatment on problem users including leaving the offense for all to see intact, and how disemvoweling leads to banning. The inventor herself discusses just how little it would take for her to use it at Making Light.

I've removed this because this is a totally inaccurate description of what is behind the link given. DeLong (note spelling) only provides a link to an automatic disemvoweling CGI script, and quotes a request from Crooked Timber for such a script to be developed.

There are additional comments on the page, but none are from DeLong himself. Henry Farrell (of Crooked Timber) does explain why he banned one particular poster from his site. There doesn't seem to be any real connection to disemvowelling involved, though: note that on the thread discussed[5] the poster who was banned was not at any point disemvowelled. I believe the connection is merely that following this incident, Farrell investigated disemvowelling as a technique for deterring potential future trouble-makers, and thus posted the request that DeLong quoted in his article. All this leaves is Teresa Nielsen Hayden's comments that she would have disemvowelled the offending comments quickly, which having read some of them doesn't really surprise me... they didn't take long to work up to the parting comment of "Fuck you, you smug, snooty, bigoted prick." This certainly doesn't seem to me to be a description of "just how little it would take for [TNH] to use it". I think Marky48 just added that comment as part of some personal vendetta he seems to have against her, it certainly isn't supported by the source and is highly personal. JulesH 13:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. That's what I get for not reading the linked material. Sorry about that. I do think the principle is sound; i.e., "Supporters say that disemvoweling is effective, while detractors contend that it is a way to belittle someone en route to banning that person from a site." Something like that. Of course the factual aspect of that probably needs research. If disemvoweling is "surprisingly effective," then that implies a large proportion of cases in which no further action is needed to end the disruption, just a few days of waiting out the person being disemvoweled. Yet as has recently been seen in two cases on ML, some people continue to post long after disemvoweling takes effect, and are subsequently banned. It would be interesting to know whether this is the norm or the exception, because it goes a long way toward verifying the "suprisingly effective" claim or, instead, the claim that it's just a way to ridicule someone as a prelude to banishment. If there is some justification to the latter, beyond the understandable anger of people so treated, then it should be mentioned. That's all I'm sayin'. (And of course the underlying claim, that people get pilloried and banned for polite disagreement, seems to be a serious distortion of the facts, however much some people might believe that.) Karen 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

DeLong shows the sort of attack that prompted HIM to write the thread. Hayden's testimony is it would take a lot less provocation for HER. Context is not your friend Jules. I don't like you, that much is clear, but you're a one-note samba propagandist. There is a context in which this treatment is employed. The dgrees of infraction are pertinent. I think you've made this personal enough with enough links to your attacks on me including on Hayden's thread. I've never made comments like the quote addressing DeLong, who by the way is an appropriate appeal to authority as a blogger and Berkeley econonmist. Who was your link to? Cathyblogger? Yeah that's equal billing. Moreover, a quick scan of your Wiki history shows hardly any experience writing encyclopedia pages; none really, especially solo efforts. Mine is more extensive and outside of the novice writer forum clique from whence you came. Keep your opinions out of this. They don't count. Get off my back. Marky48 16:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, what DeLong says in that page is this: "The Great Disemvoweling Webform" and "Created by Novalis in response to Henry Farrell's plea." The other words on the page are not DeLong's. They are the words of commentors to his blog. Please read what you're summarising more carefully.

Yes, Teresa Nielsen Hayden (note, not "Hayden," which is only part of her name; if you wish to refer to her by surname that is "Nielsen Hayden") did say that she would be faster than Henry Farrell was to disemvowel the comments. Note that Farrell did not disemvowel any comments, but instead allowed the discussion to progress to the point where he felt the only way of proceding was to ban the individual concerned. Unless you want to argue that disemvowelling is too strong a reaction to comments that are basically ad-hominem attacks and are clearly intended to be offensive, I don't think "just how little" is an appropriate way of describing it. But I don't agree with that position, and I don't think many would.

I fail to see the relevance of DeLong's educational background here. I did not at any point suggest that he was not an appropriate source or an important blogger, merely that the source does not say what you claim it does. And I also see your characterisation of Kathryn Cramer as "Cathyblogger" as needlessly offensive to her. Admittedly, she might not be as respected a blogger as DeLong or even Henry Farrell, but she's far from being a nobody; she's well known enough in the field of publishing to be mentioned in a wikipedia article on her own merits here.

Finally, I resent your implication that I am unsuitable for editing at Wikipedia. And you suggest that my experience is inferior to yours, while over the last year since I signed up my current account I have made nearly 300 edits on around 100 different articles (excluding talk pages), and you're the only editor who has ever reverted my changes immediately; you, on the other hand, have made less than 100 edits on just 7 different articles. Of my 100 articles, 80 are unrelated to the "novice writer forum clique from whence I came" (BTW: I was editing Wikipedia before I was a regular reader or commenter at Making Light, which I would hardly describe as a "novice writer clique"; a reasonably large proportion of the writers who visit there are professionals). Of your 7, just 5 are. That gives me a better ratio.

And my opinions don't count? You are the one who has been repeatedly adding your opinion into articles, and is now misrepresenting the opinions of others in order to somehow score some kind of perverted victory over the apparently unfair practice of moderating discussion forums by removing parts of a post. Face it: the notion that the idea behind disemvoweling is to humiliate the poster is your opinion, and yours alone. You've been unable to find a source, no matter how tangential, that suggests anyone other than you believes this. You persist in adding to the article your assertion that disemvoweling usually leads to banning, but have been unable to back this up with any evidence either. Yes, maybe you have been banned from Making Light. From all I can make out, this makes you a rare exception. Other sites I've looked at that use disemvoweling also seem to only use banning as a rare measure, also. Stop trying to apply your one-sided personal experience to the article. You're the exception, not the rule.

And please, lay off the personal insults. I'm not sure what exactly a "one-note samba propagandist" is, but it doesn't sound complimentary. JulesH 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lay off the personal insults. I see no records of your so-called editing anywhere on Wikipedia. I reject your logic and changes, and am reporting you to Wikiauthorities. There is no Cathryn Cramer article. The content on DeLong's thread is very telling, but not from your POV which is reverent to "Nielsen Hayden" above all else. I'm telling you to back off in no uncertain terms. I did not say anything to Hayden of the nature said to DeLong. Your quote implies I did. I'm not going to abide one-note Samba attacks based on my background with your "friends." Exception? Where's the evidenc e for your point? I don't see any. Ad Ignorantiam? I think so.Marky48 03:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What personal insults? You're the one who is continuously insulting me! The records of my editing are there for all to see, and can be viewed here. That doesn't include contributions I made in the year or so that I was editing Wikipedia before I signed up for an account, although they are probably fewer than those I have made since.

While there is no Kathryn Cramer article (please make the effort to spell people's names right -- that's the third such error I've spotted in a name in your replies on this page alone), this does not in any way invalidate what I have said about her, and the details on the page I linked to suggest she is notable enough to have such an article; I, however, do not know enough about her to write it, so somebody else will have to do that.

The content on DeLong's thread is telling of what, exactly? What I see is a discussion with a number of people all of whom have different opinions.

One of the posters posted a message that contained such insults as "you’re a classless asshole" and "fuck you, you smug, snooty, bigoted prick." He then seems to be annoyed that this resulting in his being banned from a forum operated by the person he was insulting. We can therefore discount his opinion as irrelevant, since he clearly doesn't understand the rules of civil discourse, and as we are talking about enforcement of these rules he clearly cannot have formed a useful opinion about them.
One of the posters defends him, saying "I don't see anything particularly offensive about it except that his anger got away with him and he used swear words at the end of his post that detracted rather than added to it." Well, that's a pretty big "except". This poster then goes on to make unsupported accusations that the decision to ban the first poster was made on grounds of class discrimination. He doesn't make any really useful contribution to the thread.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden's comment neatly destroys the last poster's argument by presenting a counterexample.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden comments that if first poster had behaved the same way on her forum, she'd have disemvowelled him "so fast it would make his head spin". The latter part of this sentence is clearly hyperbole and doesn't really mean anything. She goes on to list ways that some people respond to being disemvowelled, and states that she would disemvowel responses that follow this pattern (all of which seems reasonable to me).
A person called just "Doug" suggests what you original put in DeLong's mouth: that the embarassment of being disemvowelled is part of the reason it works. Note that Wikipedia policy is to not cite anonymous opinions, so this doesn't qualify as a valid source. If DeLong had said it, or Henry Farrell or many of the other posters, it would be fine. But they didn't.
Finally, somebody called just "John" makes a naive argument from a free speech standpoint that neglects to take into account the history of unmoderated discussions on the Internet descending into flaming matches.

When you say "my quote" implies you said something other than what you did, what precisely do you mean?

I have not at any point attacked your background. I don't believe anybody else here has attacked your background. I don't know anything about your background, so would find that remarkably difficult to do.

Where's the evidence for my point? My point was that you have no evidence for your point -- it is up to you to provide it, and so far you haven't. That my suggestion is argumentum ad ignorantium is irrelevant here; we're talking about writing an encyclopedia article and it is up to contributors to provide verification that what they are adding is correct. I merely pointed out that you don't have such verification, and were just adding something because it is your opinion.

Finally, please stop adding this link back in, at least while you are still putting an inaccurate summary of its contents with it. And please stop removing the Kathryn Cramer link. It is perfectly valid for the purpose it is used, which is merely to back up the statement that "proponents of disemvowelling argue ..." by showing such a proponent arguing precisely what is described. This isn't an "appeal to authority"; no suggestion is made that Cramer is authoratitive on such matters. If you persist, I'll have to bring external assistance in to resolve this dispute, and I'm pretty sure they'll side with me. JulesH 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure they won't. The post and link is a discussion of disemvoweling with comments from the inventor and her husband. The idea that this is embarassing for the poster who is disemvoweled for whatever reason, justified or not, is public ridicule and banishment from the online colony, is self-evident. Of course it is, that's the idea. Not everyone tells the host to shove off in the manor used in this thread though. It's an example of what should warrant punishment, and I sure didn't say those things or defend them, but the definition of what constitutes an infraction is nebulous. It can be anything. Stop telling me what to do. You're not the boss here, self-appointed or otherwise.Marky48 19:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark: the problem is that your description of the content of the link is just totally wrong. DeLong says nothing at all about it, he merely quotes somebody else. Stating that the linked article shows "just how little" provocation is needed before Nielsen Hayden would use the technique on Making Light borders on being a personal attack; it implies a judgement that that amount is too little. I see nothing in the linked page that suggests that Disemvowelment leads to banning, yet you repeatedly add text to the article that suggests that this a valid conclusion to draw from that page. And all the time, you attribute these opinions to DeLong who has said nothing about it. I have no real objection to having a link to that page, I'm just not sure I see what it can usefully achieve. JulesH 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My changes to the DeLong link paragraph

OK, Marky48 has just added the link back in again, this time with a more extended (yet irrelevant) biography of DeLong, and a more detailed description of how he interprets the content in the target thread. How he reads it that way, I have no idea, but I'm not going to delete it again, as I've already deleted it twice. So I've edited it to be more accurate. It all seems rather irrelevant and unencyclopedic to me, so anyone else feel free to delete it. Or turn it into something useful; I tried, but I can't see how. Given that DeLong says nothing about the subject at all, I don't see why his occupation is relevant. I just don't see how the link backs up the assertion that Disemvoweling leads to banning, so I've removed that part of the paragraph again. I hope what I've done here is different enough that we can work from it, but I'm not particularly optimistic. JulesH 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Marky48 changed the sentence:

Moreover, it may be impossible for a targeted poster to respond even cordially, since in some cases every message is subsequently scrambled in this fashion.

To:

Moreover, it may be impossible for a targeted poster to respond even cordially, since in many cases every message is subsequently scrambled in this fashion

I don't see any source that backs up "many". In fact, we have no sources for this statement at all (although I accept that in the "some" variant at least it is true), except the statement by Teresa Nielsen Hayden in the DeLong thread that if a poster behaved in one of a number of ways that were in her experience typical after the first disemvoweling, then she would also disemvowel their replies. But, this is simply her practice. Despite having originated it, she is only one of many forum administrators who use this technique, and we must take into account all of their practices in writing this article. Also, as a matter of policy that is determined by each site using the technique individually and orthogonally to the decision to use disemvowelling, I'm not really sure it belongs here. Perhaps in a discussion on the ethics of forum moderation, but this article is about one specific technique of moderation; IMO it should cover how it is done, its history, its advantages, its drawbacks and perhaps information about a few people who use it. That "targeted posters" may not be permitted to respond is not a drawback of the technique, but a free-speech issue that is generated by the very idea of forum moderation (at least in the form in which it is usually practiced).

He also added:

Continued participation is discouraged, and in known cases has led to permanant banning.

I've removed this, as it isn't sourced, and I'm pretty sure that continued participation is welcome in at least some, if not many cases. If we want to cite cases where continued participation (and continued participation alone; i.e. the poster was not being abrasive or discourteous) did lead to a ban, then perhaps this statement can stay. But, I don't really think it's relevant to this article. The decision to ban really is independent from the decision to disemvowel, and may occur whether or not disemvoweling is used. The same objections I raised in the previous paragraph apply, only stronger. JulesH 07:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Replacement for Kathryn Cramer link?

Marky48 has removed the Kathryn Cramer link again. I'm not going to revert his reversions any more, so I'll not be adding it back. Anyone else could, if they wanted, of course, but perhaps it would be better to find a link he hasn't taken an irrational dislike to. Any suggestions? JulesH 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Things that should be discussed in this article

But which I have been unable to find useful sources for.

Negative opinions of the technique by anyone who provides a full name and who hasn't had it used on them.
Details of any sites that have tried it and subsequently stopped using the technique
I've seen a suggestion during my research that it may be unlawful in some jurisdictions due to copyright law. I'd like to see some discussion of this by somebody legally qualified, but haven't seen any. It could just have been a misinterpretation of the law by the poster I saw.

Anyone know of anything like this? JulesH 06:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

An agreeable solution. Aha!

*"To* **assume good faith** is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." -- **from WIkipedia:Assume good faith**

Heated disputes are never a good way to solve a disagreements amongst editors of the Wikipedia community. However, compromise and calm discussion are vastly productive ways to better a Wikipedia article. This little section of the talk page is a discussion that will be used to aid users in coming to an agreeable solution.

Simply as a common courtesy, please remember to assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, and be as kind as possible while collaborating with fellow Wikipedians. Please mention any problems that you feel should be overviewed, and try to come to an agreeable concensus so that we can better Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks! -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 09:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like nobody wants to be the first to say anything, so perhaps I ought to break the silence here. I think the main problems we need to resolve are:

Marky48's insistence on adding unsourced negative opinions
His repeated removal of sources of positive opinions
Scope of the article -- should things like whether or not disemvoweling is a prelude to banning be considered, or should they be outside of the scope? Are comments about how the technique is applied at individual sites (E.g. Making Light) relevant? For instance, consider the following paragraph from the article as it stands at the moment:

On a page hosted by UC Berkeley Economics professor and blogger Brad DeLong, a number of bloggers discussed the need and reasons for employing this treatment on problem users. Henry Farrell, administrator of the site Crooked Timber, pointed out that having left an example of an offense for all to see intact would effectively "ridicule" offenders. One person who had previously been banned from Farrell's site for making offensive comments took issue with its use. Nielsen Hayden stated that she would use it quickly at Making Light if a poster had behaved similarly to the poster banned by Farrell. The decision to disemvowel a post is extremely subjective and varies among moderators. Moreover, it may be impossible for a targeted poster to respond even cordially, since in some cases every message is subsequently scrambled in this fashion.

I personally consider that of all of this information, only the second sentence is really relevant, but whenever I remove any of it, Marky48 is quick to reinstate it.

So, I'm not really sure how to progress from here. We need to have sources for as much as possible, and I think that extends to removing any opinions we can't find sources for. I think the source I added previously was entirely appropriate, and don't understand Marky48's objection to it. I feel the text concerning the Brad DeLong blog entry should be substantially condensed, and merged with the other paragraph on proponents opinions. Beyond that, I'm not sure what needs doing. JulesH 11:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait for others to reply, since I'm not directly involved in this. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 11:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem: julesH insists on painting a rosy scenario due to his involvement with the inventor Mrs. Neilsen Hayden, who uses it repeatedly to humiliate and ban people. I have three examples of this that are documented including my own. I'm supposed to cleanse the negativity of this invention? Why? The information needs to discuss ramifications of the policy as well as say what it is. I have with sources including those of the inventor and her husband. Proponents' opinions have no bearing, only insofar as what they use it for and why. I see no need to mention Farrell, since the link is on DeLong's post. I don't know what Cramer is supposed to be for? An appeal to authority? We know forum administrators such as these "like" the concept on its face so why do we need links to more of those? Why does Crooked Timber need to come in? It's redundant. My link gives them all, and Nielsen Hayden testifies she uses it and bans people for lesser reasons that the blatant example. So I have three examples of banning after disemvoweling, and he has none of any that were scrambled and not banned, and we are to believe negative evidence to the positive?

Mr. Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake, the article's proponents and the complaint here by Mavarin, come from a tiff on Making Light in which I was disemvowled repeatedly just for disagreeing with the crowd. I couldn't respond without being banned for respondeing. Am I to believe there could have been no other outcome from the point I was scrambled and ridiculed by the group? Could anyone? Has anyone? I doubt it. I'd toss the whole vanity article if it was up to me. One entry paragraph summary and end it. It's no big accomplishment for an editor at TOR to recognize and remove vowels, and why should it be encyclopedic at all is my ultimate question?Marky48 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, this is not a complaint. It is an attempt to resolve the conflict in such a way that everyone is at least reasonably satisfied, including you. I've got to rush off right now, but I'll be back. I really hope we can solve this! Karen 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not a complaint in any form of the word. After all, it's not the Complaint Cabal, it's the Mediation Cabal :D. I understand you feel very passionate about this issue, and I can see that you genuinely wish for the truth to be expressed, but this is not an "I'm right, they're wrong" scenario, this is an attempt at cooperation. Wikipedia's purpose is to present all valid information to the reader, and allow them to formulate their own opinions on the matter. You seem to have an "us or them" mindset on the issue, and I don't think this problem will ever be solved if this continues to be the focus of your thoughts. You are not the enemy in this discussion. So I think the best idea would be to lean back, chill out, and take a constructive paradigm before continueing any further. I don't intend to sound harsh, negativity is something I never want to express :), I merely wish to point out the actual problem at hand. I truly hope you consider my words as genuine suggestions, not merely an attack on your character.

Painstakingly crafted from the caverns of the heart,
The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(P.S.: Just in case anyone is confused, I'm not an admin, or any other figure of authority within Wikipedia. I'm just a user like everybody else, who volunteers to peacefully settle disputes such as these. Thank you once again for understanding.)

Well, let the "us versus them" cliches fly. It's so in vogue these days, but that's the history of the issue nonetheless and it's fact-based. "Cooperation" where unbalanced ideas take precedence over well-rounded facts and context does the reader a disservice. That's my only concern here. Mediation is the result of a "complaint." I have the evidence to show that plan exists. I'm seeing the same "we don't care who is right on an issue as long as there's no conflict" meme a sin other online forums. I find this weak-kneed and not very helpful from a knowledge base perspective. When misinformation wins we all lose in society. I'd say get someone in with authority that is able to critically reason on any issue. No offense meant.Marky48 03:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Sorry again, Mark, but this is factually incorrect. Jules mentioned the possibility of reporting you to someone. You went a step further, and told him, "Consider yourself reported." As far as I can tell, neither of you actually took such a step. I thought such an escalation might be premature and unhelpful, so I, on my own and without consulting anyone beforehand, researched what conflict resolution avenues exist, and chose one that is intended to be friendly and neutral toward both sides, and not a complaint at all. I even led off my explanation with an attempt to explain your objections. I freely admit that I said elsewhere that something stronger could be tried later if it doesn't work out, but I truly hope it won't come to that.

In addition, Jules and I have both done research (as have you), trying to make the article more balanced (which by definition means presenting both sides, not just yours and not just TNH's) and more factually accurate. The results, while incomplete, are all over this very long talk page. In theory at least, we're all trying for the same thing here. And the meme of cooperation, which is central to the Wikipedia ethos, is not cooperation instead of accuracy and balance. It's cooperation to achieve accuracy and balance.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm not sure whether you're asserting that "Us and Them" exists and should be admitted, or is a good thing, or is a conspiracy by Jules and myself, or...well, some other option I haven't thought of. But I would like to direct you to my extensive writings on the subject of "Us and Them." (Google kfbofpql or mavarin in connection with the phrase "Us and Them" if you're interested.) I firmly believe that it's a major source of evil in the world, possibly THE major source of evil in the world. As long as a person can label someone else a "them," the person doing the labeling can justify treating the other person as subhuman, evil, an infidel, a fool, a troll, or by some other tag that allows them to be hated, passed over, disregarded, disrespected, stolen from, warred against, or killed. This is where war and bigotry come from. I submit that there is no Them, anywhere. There is only Us. And we need to be nice to Us - all of Us, and do our best to get along. Regards to all (again). Karen 04:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In response to Mark's first reply:

1. I have no "involvement" with Mrs Neilsen Hayden beyond the fact that I read her blog from time to time.

2. Where is the evidence that she uses it "to humiliate and ban people"? I am firmly of the belief that she uses it merely as a tool to maintain order in the busy comments section of her blog. I don't believe humiliation enters into her reasons, and you have presented no evidence that it does.

3. The only proponents opinions I have quoted are the reasons that they use it. Why do you think otherwise?

4. I mentioned Farrell because the previous phrasing that did not use his name made it sound as though DeLong held the opinions that were actually Farrells. Your latest phrasing of this paragraph does not mention him but doesn't have this problem, so that should probably stand.

5. Cramer is a proponent who posted her opinion of why it should be used on her weblog. It is not an appeal to authority (as I have stated repeatedly in my edit summaries), but evidence of the fact that proponents have these opinions. We need links to these because if we claim people hold opinions, we have to give a source for that according to WP:Verifiability.

6. Crooked Timber comes into because without that context (that DeLong was quoting a request from another site) it is difficult or impossible to understand the true meaning of the discussion you linked to. As for Farrell, the new phrasing avoids this need.

7. Nielsen Hayden says no such thing. She says she would have used it "so fast [on the poster banned from Crooked Timber] his head would spin." She goes on to state a number of likely responses and indicates that she would also disemvowel those responses. She does not mention banning people from commenting on her site. 8. What 3 examples of being banned after disemvowelling? The only one _I_ know of is you. Provide some evidence. 9. You weren't disemvoweled "just for disagreeing with the crowd". Your comments are available for all to read, in their disemvowelled form, at the link I posted above. The easiest to read is "Tk flng lp" (which I interpret as "take a flying leap"). That isn't disagreement, that's postively rude.

10. Mark, you weren't banned for responding. In fact, if you look through the thread, you'll find there are lenty of responses from you after your first disemvowelment that weren't even disemvowelled. But you soon reverted to rude behaviour again and were disemvowelled again. You were banned, according to Teresa Nielsen Hayden's post announcing it, for using a sock puppet. This has nothing to do with disemvoweling; it was just the next obvious step for her to take seeing as you continued behaving in the way that had earned you your first disemvoweling. Some other sites would have done it straight away.

11. The article is useful for people who are considering using the technique in their own forums. This is why it should be included in an encyclopedia. For it to be useful, we need more than just a single paragraph. We need details of the pros and cons of using it. The history is interesting to know, and could be useful to somebody at some point. (By the way, Tor shouldn't generally be written in block capitals; it isn't an acronym or anything) JulesH 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No evidence? [6]This not mine by the way, it's talking about the other banned one later on.

In Neilsen Hayden's own words:

"We can keep disemvowelling your messages as long as you can keep writing them. However, that's not what's going to happen. If you keep this up, I'll run more severe distortions on your messages. If you still don't stop, I'll delete them.You can't win here. All you can do is make us marvel at what a slow learner you are."

She called me the same thing, which is: get out. Once disemvoweling has occurred no one ever comes back unless under a different identity.

So my examples keep piling up and yours? Unsubstantiated opinion I'm afraid. No, I couldn't respond, and said nothing rude, or use profanity. That quote I disemvowled myself in jest. Let's be blunt: I don't like you and you have a vendetta against me from that thread, and thus cannot be objective. This time I'm requesting a settlement. I don't have time to read your littany of out of context quotations and lack of evidence for your biased editing. There is no us/them inplay here on my part. That's why I called it the easy cliche. It is one against two in this debate and the history is what it is. My points are firm that to balance the article it needs the negative aspect clearly defined. We know forum administrators are for it. We're taking this farther up the chain of command here if a dissinterested third party doesn't show up soon. Calling me the problem just doesn't cut it. I'm a degreed scientist and journalist and I know know from experience how false amiguity can stifle knowledge. The US Government does it all the time with global warming among others. The facts lead where they lead. Continuing to ridicule my experience from the thread from whence you both came with personal taunts is not an objective position. I'm dealing in facts here. Please try to do so as well instead of supporting this "evil troll" meme as a personal smear. You've done it repeatedly on both of these articles out of self-interest. It just isn't helpful. Marky48 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

--

Hmm. One small clarification on Jules' point #10. Some time after TNH disemvoweled one of Mark's comments, she mentioned going back and selectively doing the same for some of his older comments. This shows a) that some of the others were not unacceptable by her standards, and b) that the historical record is a bit muddied here. We can't assume that he was disemvoweled and then allowed to post further unaltered comments, because the first altered comment was done after the fact. On tbe other hand, the lack of blanket retroactive disemvoweling suggests that it might have been possible to get back into the conversation by immediately changing the tone of the comments. We'll never know for sure. Karen 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Mark, Shelagh's case is a very unusual one, according to Nielsen Hayden's own words:

Shelagh, by my own rules I would normally ignore what I've seen you do in other online venues, and wait until you'd infracted my rules in my weblog.

Not this time. [7]

Teresa allowed you to continue posting after your first disemvowelled comment. It was only after you persisted in behaving in the fashion that had caused the first disemvowelling that she took the step of banning you.

I have no vendetta against you. I couldn't care less about you, to be honest. I just want to ensure that this article, which I consider a useful reference about a useful technique of forum moderation, does not get destroyed by forcing upon it the irrelevant opinions of a small minority of people.

Nothing I have quoted is "out of context". I have not added anything to this article without evidence to back it up, although you have removed my evidence on a number of occasions, apparently because you don't feel the source for it is adequately qualified.

I think your editing makes it clear that you see me and Karen (and other regular Making Light or Absolute Write readers) as a "them" who are actively working against you, and trying to deny it by calling it a cliche isn't going to cut it. Your own previous words tell us quite clearly that that is how you see it.

Who here is relevant, other than forum administrators? It is a technique that is designed to be used by forum administrators for maintaining order in their forums. They are the only people who are likely to want to know about it.

Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake is a disenterested third party; that's the entire point of the mediation process.

Nobody here called you the problem. Nobody here called you an evil troll. I did at one point call you a hypocrite, a statement which I will retract -- it was said in the heat of the moment, and if I had thought before posting I would have removed it.

I fail to see the relevance of your qualification, but if you insist on bringing qualifications into I too have a science degree and have, in the past, been employed as a freelance journalist. I understand these issues just as much as you do.

All the edits I've made on both articles have been in the interests of presenting a balanced article about the subjects. My edits on Barbara Bauer were not, as you insisted at the time, designed to smear James Cordray (although I have no idea how linking to Cordray's own words could possibly achieve this). My edits here have been solely intended to remove unsubstantiated negative opinion about a technique of moderation, added by somebody who has been the subject of that technique and seems to have taken it rather personally. Please, don't.

Disemvowelling as a concept is not about censorship of ideas, or banning people from discussions (there are much easier ways of achieving both of those); it is merely a technique for maintaining order on a discussion forum. The criteria for using it are irrelevant, as they are the choices of the individual moderators. Whether Teresa Nielsen Hayden uses it only as a last resort or disemvowels posts by anyone she doesn't like the look of as soon as they turn up is not relevant to this article, which is about the concept of disemvowelling. Perhaps it would be better added to Teresa Nielsen Hayden, if you insist, but I don't think it's particularly relevant there either. If her primary source of notability were as a forum moderator, perhaps. Whether individual administrators choose to ban posters after disemvowelling their posts is also not the issue here, because it is their decision to make and they will make it entirely independently of whether or not they used disemvowelling. They may well simply remove the offending posts, or offending portions of posts instead of disemvowelling (this is the most common way of dealing with the sort of problem disemvowelling is designed for); then they may or may not ban the poster depending on their local policy. You see it makes no difference whether they used disemvowelling or not.

So, basically, I just don't see why the information you're trying to add here has any relevance to this article. Can you justify it to me? JulesH 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the tone? Not acceptible? Based on what? And with negative proof too! ad Ignorantiam. Brilliant in its simplicity, but alas, circumstantial ad hominem nonetheless. No this historical record fails the scratch test Karen, but it's perfect propaganda. While responding cordially but firm in my position of my personal opinion of Ms. Glatzer, which differed from the group, I was disemvoweled. I was given a "hint" to which I responded directly to Teresa in good faith. In further responses she continued disemvoweling and then backtracked scrambling my posts as claimed all the way back in time. Since they are still there one could still read them to decide what was inappropriate couldn't they? This is a hostile exchange.Marky48 17:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've proven it leads to banning and the only reason to use it or invent it in the first place is to humiliate and remove dissenting opinion in comment threads. Your qualifications are unknown, like the rest of your evidence of the "rosy" scenario and it's clear you'll say anything no matter how illogical it is, and ignore all evidence you don't like as necessary.

"it is merely a technique for maintaining order on a discussion forum." Who says this? It sounds like a PR press release to me. Reporters have to unscamble and elaborate of these biased sources all the time.

Yeah, everything is exceptions huh? I've heard that before, yet we have no evidence of the disemvoweled returning as you claim do we? Your argument fails on its face in lack of context for the implementation and ramifications of disemvoweling. I'm submitting it for arbitration.Marky48 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, on what are you basing your claim that you have proved that changing the tone doesn't help? Your posts certainly didn't change in tone, and Teresa made it clear that she was going to disemvowel Shelagh's whatever the tone was the moment she started posting (that particular one is semi-personal, and not representative of the general reality). And what, precisely, is "ad hominem"? Which of your disemvowelled posts was cordial? Perhaps the one that contains "G wy yrslf" or "Jss, cn cmmnctn rlly b ths dffclt?" or the remaining three which were just generally hostile to the other people on the board? And again, what does it matter if you weren't allowed to post. Why is that relevent? We're discussing a general moderation technique, and you're bringing it down to complaints about the behaviour of specific moderators. The fact that the moderator in question invented the technique being discussed is irrelevant.

You've proven nothing beyond the fact that there are cases of disemvoweled people being subsequently banned. Your argument is post hoc ergo propter hoc. My qualifications are irrelevant, just as yours are. I don't claim that everything is an exception, merely the two cases you have cited. I'm aware of a couple of others, too. It isn't up to me to prove that disemvowelled people return. It is up to you to prove your assertion that you are adding, that in "many" cases they are not allowed to. Three cases don't make "many". You'll need to show a general trend in order to add that. JulesH 17:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, please don't add new content to comments that are above somebody elses after they have posted them. I almost didn't notice the text you added from "I've proven" to "ramifications of disemvoweling" after I posted my comment.

"it is merely a technique for maintaining order on a discussion forum." Who says this?

Who says it isn't? Please, provide a source. JulesH 17:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not give me orders sir. This is negative affirmation i.e. ad ignorantiam. Moreover a personal opinion and overgeneralization. The burden of proof is on you not I. How many would it take? 20? 25? 30? I get the idea no amount would ever be a "trend" to you and you continue to portray me in a bad light. Your opinion is selectively quoting my posts and you call those posts hostile? Hence the extreme subjectivity I asserted in the page. I cannot continue to debate you on this as there is no amount of evidence that would convince someone this close to the source. Friends give friends good reviews. There is a proven trend for that too. The technique is the topic. What it does and why is the scope. These facts are well within the scope of an encyclopedic article otherwise it's nothing more than a stub. We're going to arbitration.Marky48 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What? I haven't given you any orders. I've made requests, perhaps, but at no point have I given you orders. Negative affirmation it may be, but the point is that positive affirmation is required for inclusion in the article, as per WP:Verifiability. If you want to include the statement, the burden of proof is upon you. I'd suggest that your best hope is not to find a large number of cases because any number you could reasonably find could be described as merely anecdotal evidence and not relevant to establishing the trend you want to illustrate. Perhaps if you could find a named and apparently unbiased source other than yourself who has published these opinions we could refer to it as a detractor's opinion, similarly to how I tried to establish proponents opinions by refering to the Kathryn Cramer article.

Teresa Nielsen Hayden is not my friend. I have never met her, have never interacted with her on a personal level and have no other link to her besides the fact that I sometimes read her weblog. As, apparently, do you. Besides, this article is not about her.

Yes, the article should cover the effects of disemvowelling, and the reasons why those who use it do so. This is why I included the link to the Kathryn Cramer article, to present these reasons. However, I have seen no evidence in your posts or anywhere else that either banning or continued removal of posts is an effect of disemvowelling. Even if we accept the small volume of evidence you have provided, you have merely shown correlation, not causation. I'm sure it could equally be shown that other forum moderation techniques (e.g. removing offending posts entirely) have similar results. This is probably more to do with personal attitudes of both forum moderators and the posters who antagonise them sufficiently to make them act than it is to do with any attribute of the technique of moderation itself. And therefore, I don't believe it is relevant to an article about such a technique. Perhaps a general article about moderation (e.g. forum moderator) would be amore appropriate place to discuss these issues.

If you feel arbitration would be a useful solution to this problem, I'm not going to argue with you. JulesH 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your logic obtuse and uncooperative. "I have seen no evidence in your posts or anywhere else that either banning or continued removal of posts is an effect of disemvowelling." No one is implying direct causation in every instance, and yes correlation is pertinent and valid. You are playing semantics on behalf of your generalized message.

It's now three against one.Marky48 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources you think you'll need... three sources still doesn't show a trend. You could put "some" cases, but you have no proof of "many" cases. If you feel arbitration is really nessicary, then by all means go ahead. No one will stop you. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My "small volume" of evidence is a damn sight bigger than your negative affirmation. "that other forum moderation techniques (e.g. removing offending posts entirely) have similar results." These are all from the same playbook. Once disemvoweled there is no return and in fact the other techniques come next and have as I've shown. An inductive argument can't be won in the deductive fashion wanted by the other parties here, thus, We are at an impasse.I've applied for an advocate.Marky48 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, please don't add comments above another comment that already exists. It's very confusing, especially when you refer to the content of the comment in question (as you did with your final sentence). Your evidence may be larger than mine in volume, but that still doesn't mean it is enough to support the assertion that you are trying to make. JulesH 19:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark -- please do not modify your comments after others have replied to them. For reference, my comment above was made in response to the previous version of the paragraph above it which read, at the time of my posting, thus:

My "small volume" of evidence is a damn sight bigger than your negative affirmation. I've applied for an advocate. We are at an impasse.

I don't know whether you're deliberately trying to obscure the record of this conversation, or if it's purely accidental. If the latter, please try be more careful in future. If the former, stop. I'm watching the edit history of this page, and will spot it. JulesH 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to follow: It makes the case I'm making. Yours makes nothing. Good day.Marky48 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I follow you alright. I just disagree: it doesn't make the case you're making. It's nowhere near enough to make the case you're making.

By the way, I think you may have made a mistake in your request for an advocate. New requests should be added to the top of the list, in a subsection of their own. You put yours at the bottom (in the archive section) and didn't add a subsection for it. JulesH 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, please remain civil and do not stoop to "I'm right, you're wrong" statements. I (the disinteresting third party) and everyone involved have made extensive attempts at reaching a peaceful solution, and yet you continue to remain mean and nasty. I have a lot of patience, but it's beginning to wear thin. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not lecture me sir. I'm worn thin with this diatribe and have reported you. His dicatates are obtuse and fractional. I edit my remarks as necessary to answer more fully. I do this on my blog as well. I find you collective logic path invalid. You've been adversarial in the extrem and I see no reason to take these personal insults. Again I'm reporting it to the authorites. The record stands on its own. Do not accuse me of crimes. That's an attack. I disagree with your refusal of evidence that does not support your biased position and reject your bifricated arguments from ignorance.Marky48 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Example required

This article page needs an example. It is one thing to present the information it is another altogether to present so that it makes the avergae reader wiser.

Ths rtcl pg nds n xmpl. t s n thng t prsnt th nfrmtn t s nthr ltgthr t prsnt t s tht t mks th vrg rdr wsr.

Without an example and I would suggest a spoiler in the next paragraph it is hard for an avergae reader to understand just how obtusificating the technique is. I didnt know until I wrote a sample. NOTE: simply removing all white space is not always reversible there exist sentences that are contradictorily ambiguous. Removing vowels is more radical, I suspect but havnt thought of an example where it destroys or at least leaves open two original meanings, which is where humour probably uses it. 202.164.205.96 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Oh and having read the controversy which includes actual players in a disemvowelling, the example should either be made up one, or one from a forum other than the one where the article authors have had direct involvement. Doing otherwise will compromise your ability to NPOV and would also 'smell' of writing yourself up as a notable person, ie wikipedia is not about me or about what I know, wikipedia is about other peoples information. 202.164.205.96 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposition.Marky48 03:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use some of the text from the article itself as an example, as the anonymous contributor here did with their first paragraph? JulesH 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines, e.g.,

For example, the first sentence of this article, in disemvoweled form, would look like this:

Dsmvwlng (ls splld dsmvwllng) s tchnq sd by frm mdrtrs t spprss ntrnt trllng, vndlsm, nd thr rd bhvr n nln dscrs by rmvng ll th vwls frm th ffndng mtrl. Karen 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's done. JulesH 18:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, JulesH. This is the kind of constructive work we need. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 19:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Marky48's last edit

He's put in his assertion that "in most cases every message is subsequently scrambled in this fashion, [1] and the person ultimately deleted and banned if they continue to try.[2]" again, despite the fact that he's clearly been told by at least two other users that his evidence is insufficient to support this conclusion. However, I've already reverted him 3 times today, so would appreciate it if somebody else could change this back. JulesH 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll not address julesH again ever, but I'll accept the last edit by mavrin as it stands now even though I didn't detect an example, only an assertion. Moreover, coming back once banned during a disemvoweling is doubtful and that's what I'm saying can happen. It can because it did twice in one thread. That may not be a trend yet but it's heading in that direction. STET. That's my compromise.Marky48 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article so that it is clear what is and is not being claimed by both proponents and detractors, removed some claims not supported by the sources, and revised the remaining claims according to my reading of the linked discussions. I have also added some editorial observations of my own, and made phrasing improvements throughout. I do not believe that my editorial assertions require reference, as they follow logically from what is sourced, but I'll quote them here in case anyone wishes to dispute them (my additions italicized):

the message remains and may still be read by those willing to make the effort, and therefore (it is argued) the original poster is less likely to complain about censorship than if the message had been deleted outright. Similarly, other readers of the forum can make up their own minds as to whether the message was offensive rather than having to take the moderator's word for it.

and

Detractors argue that the technique can be used to stifle criticism and honest debate ... These criticisms also apply to other techniques for forum moderation; any situation where one person has the ability to modify or remove another's words has the potential for abuse.

Tangentially, Marky48: please indent your responses to other posters, so that it is clear which is which.

Zack 00:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for that. Zack, it's all yours. Looks good to me. I quit. I'll not take any response instructions though. I find it very easy to follow others regardless of how they post and where. Tag you're it. Live long and thrive brother.Marky48 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)