Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 Disemvoweling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-06-16 Disemvoweling 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Evidence 1.4 Compromise offers 1.5 Comments by others 1.5.1 Comments by User:Marky48 1.5.2 Comments by User:Calton 1.5.3 Comments by User:Shelagh 2 An agreeable solution. Aha! (copied from Talk:Disemvoweling/Archive 20 June 2006)

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-16 Disemvoweling

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Karen 03:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...Disemvoweling article and Talk pages, secondarily on Barbara Bauer article and Talk pages. The dispute essentially started on the Bauer page and migrated to Disemvoweling.

Who's involved?

...User:Marky48, User:JulesH, User:Will Beback, User:Mavarin, secondarily User:Shinto and User:JeanMarie.

What's going on?

...User:Marky48 strongly disagrees with other editors re the use of a particular link in the Bauer page and another one in the Disemvoweling page. He has repeatedly taken these out. Others have restored them. He also blanked comments in Talk (for which he has apologized), attempted repeatedly to insert text that others feel violates NPOV, repeatedly insulted others, and complained that all who disagreed were "a cabal of self-interested partisans" who constituted "a group troll." Others have acknowledged a need to improve the NPOV of the Disemvoweling article, subject to problems finding sources. Each side objects to the other's linked "source" or description of same. Repeated attempts by User:Will Beback and others to assert Wikipedia principles, reduce flaming, etc. have had no effect, except possibly to exacerbate things. Some anger has been expressed on both sides, even when people were trying to be polite. At least one user appears to be somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia navigation as well as policies.

What would you like to change about that?

...1. The Disemvoweling article probably needs to reference a source for proponents and one for opponents, not just one or the other. They both need to be pertinent and accurately summarized. Statistics, even anecdotal ones, regarding whether most "disemvoweled" commenters are later banned from sites might also help resolve the dispute.

...2. At least one person needs to be persuaded to be more cool-headed, to consider other points of view (and the facts and logic behind them) and to observe NPOV better. Failing this, it may be necessary to proceed to the level of sanctions, but I keep hoping a neutral "outsider" with respect to the discussion will be able to get past the defensive and adversarial behavior.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...I'm not sure what is best here. Perhaps the mediator can advise in this regard. My AOL screen name matches my Wiki username, or you're welcome to hit my user talk page. Thanks!

[edit] Mediator response

Yup. I accept this case, hopefully solving the dispute with the magical powers of kindness and understanding. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

(Sorry I haven't used the templates below: there are a lot of links I'm about to make and I don't have the time to put them into the right format)

Barbara Bauer: multiple deletions of content added by other users by Marky48 [1] (I believe based on his later behaviour that this edit was made by Marky48) [2] [3]

Talk:Barbara Bauer: offensive comments made about other users by Marky48 [4] [5]

Disemvoweling: multiple additions of inappropriate content by Marky48 and deletions of other content added by other users, also by Marky48 [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Talk:Disemvoweling: Hostile and offensive comments made about other users by Marky48 [13] [14] [15] [16]

JulesH 07:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional edits by Marky48 on Disemvoweling since I posted the above, in each case reverting the same set of changes: [17] [18]. 20:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Comments by User:Marky48

The above complainants are friends of the article's subject and only present one side. Their history on this issue is clear, and thus are biased proponents with a personal vendetta against me based on that history. Their complaints are invalid and their sources suspect. I've tried to add balance to the issue and context to both articles. They're against it for personal and self-interested reasons as friends of the subject. This is hagiography. The idea that my additions are "inappropriate" is biased and another example of extreme prejudice by this complainant JulesH. Anyone objectively reading his long posts on the talk pages of both of these pages can see a personal agenda at play. This isn't about editing, it's about preserving the group image. Fair reportage, which I have a BA degree in from a major American university, requires more than opinion, and selective quoting. It requires balanced investigation to show the whole context instead of just "kill the trolls" and anyone who disagrees is a troll meme.Marky48 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Calton

Given that a quick read of the talk page reveals that User:Marky48 has himself been subject to this technique and complains about its manifest unfairness to him, personally, [19], it's incredibly tenditious -- even hypocritical -- for him to be complaining that other people have biased motivations: obviously, he does, too, and his liberal use of adjectives about "balance" and "fairness" in order to cast himself as somehow above the fray is flat-out misleading.

Fair reportage, which I have a BA degree in from a major American university... I don't believe I've heard of this particular degree program -- who offers it, and is there a companion "BA in Unfair Reportage" degree? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Shelagh

I don't know why my posts on a particular forum have been used in this argument but I agree with Mark's statement: "I've proven it leads to banning and the only reason to use it or invent it in the first place is to humiliate."

This reflects badly on forum moderators, not forum contributors. In all other walks of life: schools, universities, armed forces, the work place etc., humiliation is totally unacceptable. The same is true of Internet forums and message boards. -- shelagh 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An agreeable solution. Aha! (copied from Talk:Disemvoweling/Archive 20 June 2006)

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? [20]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. [21]

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)