Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 5

Many thanks to the Moderators

...in their unwavering commitment to ignoring demonstrable evidence of the prosecution lying in their affidavit, pressuring the Heene's unfairly, and withholding evidence favourable to the defence. Of course, a YouTuber making a full video putting claims of a hoax into serious question is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. Surely the immense media coverage (all coming from one source, mind you) is enough proof that Richard Heene is a liar and that this is a hoax.

Now, most Wikipedia articles I've known would at least mention such scepticism, as it is indeed a neutral and objective gathering of information, but naturally, our heroic Sheriff's office, the always neutral and truthful media and the wisdom of our two mods ([[1]] and [[2]]) utterly shatters this scepticism to such an extent, that it'd only be useless to stay objective and not call it what it is, a hoax.

What boggles my mind is why these mods would still so stringently believe that this is a hoax. Why would they want to prove that? A sense of righteousness perhaps? Or maybe they want to defend their Sheriff's office? Maybe it's just a power trip, as we've seen in a lot of other social media platforms (namely Reddit and Discord). Why otherwise would they use some random article on a Colorado magazine to disprove a 30-minute long video where Richard Heene disproves a lot of what stood in their affidavit? Not to mention the semi-protected status of this article, no doubt open to abuse by mods who take sides and think they're right about a subject they refuse to admit they're wrong in.

I don't deny that this is a hoax, that's entirely possible. But the fact is, a lot of the claims made by the Sheriff's office and the media have been disproven or at least put into serious question. Therefore I find it rather problematic that we're even having the discussion of whether we're going to put criticism of the hoax theory, and that this discussion is on Wikipedia says a lot about these two mods. Please follow the guidelines and commit to staying neutral on every subject on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civi108 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No reliable references provided. What you, and all the other Kool-Aid drinkers, fail to understand is that the neutral point of view is based on what reliable references have to say, not the claims of innoceence by criminals or crankery by people on Youtube. FDW777 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Very ignorant and self important points that clearly make you very 'un-neutral'. Neutrality is literally not being based on anything and having an disinterest in either side. This response shows that you have labelled those people who think this wasn't a hoax as 'Kool-Aid drinker's' is disturbing and shows you have taken a position on this issue against such people. Likewise the position on not using youtube as a source is absurd. If a political announces something and it the video is preserved on youtube, does that invalidate that historical event or the things that were stated? Odd in this day and age that you take the cranky position that youtube cannot be used as a source or a reference.

Also it is not spelt innoceence but actually innocence, great to know you are a moderator on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:1EBF:FA00:D403:80E:15E3:C15C (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Since are are completely ignorant of non-negotiable policies, there is little more to discuss. The article will not be changed by your bleating, no matter how loud and long you do it. FDW777 (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Enjoy the modicum of power you have to spread disinformation, you really made an impact. 2601:742:8100:B070:B53B:C5F8:D5E3:1233 (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Seeing their other replies to the people who are actually trying to get this article to be neutral, which, should be what every wikipedia article strives for mind you, are bogged down to just "kool-aid drinkers" (seriously? How old are you even lol) these mods don't give a damn. They would rather feel some sort of illusion of power by thinking they're withholding information on an event that's minor and could be done proper justice but instead is ridiculed despite the facts proving the people ridiculed had a horrible time.

Truly, the reason wikipedia is *not* a good source for things when people like these are in charge. Grow up fellas. Xhyphontic (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There's not even mods arguing here. Quit the side marks, everyone. Yes, everyone. Some remarks haven't been in good faith above. – The Grid (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree: FDW777 it is never acceptable to describe the comments of another user on this project (even be they an SPA, a problem user or even a sock) as "bleating". I was just looking through the archives to refresh myself with how long the ongoing barrage of efforts from people redirected from the YouTube conspiracy theory space to this article has been going on, and while doing so, I saw other comments by you that crossed the threshold from curt into incivil in tone. Please moderate your approach a little better, because (aside from these comments being contrary to policy), all you are doing is feeding an already deeply ingrained perspective in these, shall we say visitors that there is something nefarious, elitist, and arbitrary in our editorial approach here. While I understand and share your frustration that those beliefs derive in the first place from a very profound credulousness when it comes to the assertions of random, anonymous guys with a YouTube account and a lack effort to understand the standards which have been adopted by Wikipedia's community for reliable sourcing, you still bear a burden as a member of this community to not match obtuseness and lack of effort with your own name calling and naked contempt.

All of that said, I do think it's beyond time that we need to consider requesting semi-protection for the talk page here, at least for a while, to break the cycle of time-wasting WP:NOTAFORUM debate and ABF assertions from SPAs and IPs. It's been about a decade now of this nonsense, ever since a "the Heene's are the victims of a corrupt cabal of media, police, and prosecutorial/government agents" conspiracy theory became a pet project for some YouTubers who parrot and extend Heene's own claims of persecution, as a tiny sliver of the conspiracy theory ecosystem on YouTube. In that time, literal hundreds of SPAs and IPs have flooded this article and talk page, edit warring to add or remove content in violation of basic content and sourcing policy and community consensus (the reason the article itself was semi-protected) and now just constantly making accusations of bad faith, censorship, or outright conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Semi-protecting a talk page is a pretty extreme measure, but looking back through the record of the archives, there hasn't been a single IP or non-extended confirmed user who has made a talk page contribution concerns an edit that could realistically be implemented under this project's standards for sourcing, nor have I seen a single one of these users go on to study and try to understand the project's policies to work within them: it's always derogatory, borderline harassing behaviour from an unending turnover of IPs and newly-registered SPAs. And it's easy to see where they are arriving from: if you look at the comments section of those YouTube videos, you will see a mass of people fall over one-another to agree that these conspiracy theories obviously constitute the truth, and on the couple of occasions I subjected my brain to a YouTube comments section in order to look into what was going on here, I saw more than one express call in said comments to come here to this article to try to force content into the article, to fight against our supposed role in hiding the truth that has supposedly been uncovered by the authors of those videos.

Thankfully, since the article itself was protected, most of these people don't stay long once they realize they cannot force an unreliably sourced theory into the article. But at this point, we have had many years of evidence to demonstrate a complete lack of value being added by these comments, relative to the amount of time being consumed by the community to respond to these unending accusations of the non-SPA editors here being (at best) idiots with unreasonable, arbitrary, and inflexible rules (again without the accusers ever having demonstrated the least effort to understand even the most basic standards of this project, let alone the reasoning behind our verification standards), or (at worst) tacit members or supporters of the supposed media conspiracy itself. I'm usually an absolutist when it comes to preserving access to every aspect of the decision making process for even non-registered users, and have even pushed back against community proposals in recent years which have somewhat restricted that access. But in this case, enough is enough: the cost-benefit ratio is obviously an atrociously bad one and raising the threshold of contribution here to extended-confirmed users (a pretty low bar itself, afterall) seems entirely reasonable at this juncture.

So I'm thinking it's time to take the matter to the community via RFP or AN. It doesn't have to last forever, but even six month or a year of locking out this barrage of abusive, forumy, policy-ignorant commentary might break the cycle and convince the YouTube conspiracy theory community to stop trying to stop bringing their proselytizing here without appropriate sourcing to support their ardent stances. But until then, or in the absence of any such eventual move, the regular editors here (most of whom I think ended up here via RfC or other community process in response to the disruption) need to keep their cool and not provide a feedback loop for those who already arrive here primed to view any resistance they meet here and part of "the system" suppressing the truth. Being surely, condescending or aggressive is not an acceptable response, regardless of the prolonged provocation: veteran editors should be at a level of comfort with this sort of thing that they either weather it without losing their cool or else they should find somewhere else to contribute that won't test their patience quite so much. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment that this talk page is now entirely for wasting time with conspiracy theorists.

However, I suspect that an admin would look at the rather low volume of comments and decide it's not enough of a problem to justify breaking the long standing rule that talk pages not be protected.

Something to keep in mind next time a high-profile youtuber like InternetHistorian does a conspiracy video about it, though.

ApLundell (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's not so much a firm rule and never has been: there's a traditionally high bar to justify it, but I've been seeing more and more incidental occasions of it over recent years in areas which are in the nexus of 1) a concerning a subject matter that is heavily influenced by misinformation and 2) not well known enough (like, for example, COVID misinformation would be) to get a reliable automatic influx of concerned regular editors to counter the mass SPA push. And it's not surprising that the rules are relaxing: I hate to say it, but they kind of have to, if we're going to maintain the integrity of our core content policies, due to the regular editor attrition problem. Personally, I would not describe this as a "low volume" case: the problems have been constant, they involve mass meat puppetry organized on another site, and the SPA/bad faith editors substantially outweigh and attempt to exhaust the efforts of a very small number of regular editors, none of whom seem to be particularly interested in curating this article (which for now is stable and not needing any expansion unless there is new information), but rather all came here from RfC or noticeboard requests and feel compelled to keep checking in on the article only because the effort to force Heene's conspiracy theory into the content is never-ending.

So, given the outsized level of attention the situation on this article demands from the already busy contributors who constantly have to re-engage here over WP:SNOW proposals that can never be adopted, and the long history of snow/meat puppetry and disruptive behavior, I think there's a very reasonable chance that a well-presented RFPP would get the reluctant support it is due. But I'll grant you, it's not a certain thing, and the size and consistency of the issue would have to be well presented and attested by those of us here who have had to deal with this meat avalanche for a while--which is why I broach it here first: I'd like to have every well established editor who can speak to the duration of the talk page harassment available before any effort is made. I certainly don't make the proposal lightly: it is very antithetical to my usual policy perspectives on open access on this project. But these meat puppets have nothing to contribute in terms that can improve article, and merely constitute a constant stream of SPA registrations for accounts that will never be used anywhere else on the encyclopedia, nor for good faith, policy complaint activities on this article, so this can't go on forever--and if the issue hasn't abated in the least more than a decade on, its just not going to improve without action by the community. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we have anything on this site that is relatable to the type of conversation that happens here? I have only seen instances where locking the talk page was necessary because it was either vandalism (Talk:Territorial claims in Antarctica) or from a tweet. If we went forward with a page protection, I don't know if a permanent one could be justified. The edits don't follow a specific time from what I've noticed. – The Grid (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a bunch of articles that deal with fringe claims and get lots of impossible edit requests or accusations of bias. Water-fueled car or Homeopathy, for example. They usually don't protect the talk page unless comment volume gets really high. <50 edits in six months is pretty slow. ApLundell (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think the two of you put more energy into checking in here regularly than I, so if you both think it's a case of the proposed cure being more aggressive than the disease, I'm happy to stay the current course of just addressing the talk page disruption as it arises: the article at least is stable after all. In principle, I would say that the case here is distinct from most other pages that have to deal with constant fringe content pushing, in that this is a very narrow, discrete topic that doesn't attract as much community effort, relative to SPA efforts. But you may both be right about the prospects of whether the community would consider protection (even semi protection) in this case: I was reviewing the page protection policy yesterday and it does still say that talk page protection remains rare and is only ever implemented as a very short term solution. But I'll still try to make the time to find examples of factually similar situations in which the community has allowed it, just in case the argument needs to be made, down the line. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Media Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zach demsky (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AhsiaT (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Opinion as implicit fact/ Abuse of semi-protected status

We try to eliminate or minimise the presentation of opinion as fact. In light of more recent developments, the description of the event as a 'hoax' represents an unverifiable opinion rather than a fact. The matter of whether or not the event was a hoax is irrelevant; the claim is not supported by reliable sources. This anti-guidelines practice is fiercely defended by moderators; semi-protection on this article is thus being abused to the ends of deliberate misreporting. Comments regarding consensus are incredibly questionable as virtually every edit request bears down on the title; there is nothing to suggest that consensus is against this edit and additionally plenty of precedent to suggest that rules regarding integrity take precedence over those pertaining to consensus. This practice is contrary to the values of Wikipedia and as such those responsible are poisonous to the integrity of the system overall. The article needs to be flagged with weasel words and unreliable sources warnings at the very least. It is an inescapable fact that the word 'event' would be more appropriate in and I suggest that those who argue otherwise fail to understand how Wikipedia works.

Not citing sources because the matter relates not to proof but to the already demonstrable lack thereof. I am absolutely certain this will also be ignored/ deleted but am bored enough to do my pathetically minimal bit for honesty and integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.181.130 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 4#Requested move 4 March 2021. Nothing has changed. FDW777 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You guys are doing this backwards. Encyclopedias just collect existing news into one place. You want to clear Heene's name? Talk to the big boys. Talk to CNN. Talk to FoxNews. Talk to newspapers. Whatever they say, Wikipedia will report on.

Until then, Wikipedia isn't even the right place to have this conversation. ApLundell (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

So until major news networks known for frequently and provably lying and otherwise sensationalizing stories spontaneously decide to redact and correct statements they made over a decade ago, Wikipedia will continue to present information that independent sources have debunked. Cool. I can't wait for this entire website to finally go bankrupt. 2601:4C4:0:4D70:A040:DB2E:2CA9:EC17 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous conspiracy theorists on Youtube are not "independent sources". FDW777 (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The existence of doubt and scepticism, well reasearch to such an extent, should at any rate require that the article title be rethought Qwerty8167 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We've had the discussion. Many times. Poorly referenced tin foil hat crankery has no place in this article. This incident was a hoax, accept it and move on. FDW777 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Does this look like conspiracy to you? Be sure to watch the whole thing. OmenBreeze (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not interested in watching a self-confessed criminal claiming to be innocent on a random Youtube vidoe that can't be used as a reference anwyay. FDW777 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not interested in watching something that might give you a different perspective on the matter, huh? Yeah, I bet it'd be hard to save face after all your comments asserting that Richard Heene was clearly a criminal beyond redemption. I can see why you'd spare yourself the cognitive dissonance. OmenBreeze (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

If it helps, I've watched it, and I still think Heene is a criminal and a con-man primarily motivated by his desire to become famous.

But what I think doesn't matter. The article includes Heene's claims, but it does not treat them as fact, just claims. That is the correct thing to do. That is standard for articles about convicted criminals. Or anyone else, really.

The only thing that makes this article "special" is that a YouTuber rallied the conspiracy theorists who think Wikipedia should revolve around their conspiracy theories. ApLundell (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

We aren't conspiracy theorists. After reading the things linked here, I agree that it should stay with the title "hoax", only because that's what reputable sources report. It would be great if those reputable sources corrected their mistake, and it is unfortunate that wikipedia has to operate this way (although I don't really see an alternative given that it is an encyclopedia), but since reputable sources simply couldn't care less about correcting the record on a relatively minor event from ten years ago, I don't see how one could ever change this to a more accurate title without breaking wikipedia's rules 2601:246:4401:3910:2811:14A0:534B:74AC (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You have the amazing ability to argue by referring to anything that disagrees with you as a "conspiracy theory" to discredit it. You truly are an exemplifying body of what one sees on Wikipedia. Its hilarious that you have the audacity to refer to the news as a verifiable source of information and the reality of situations. I suppose this is why its never recommended to use Wikipedia as a source in papers of actual merit. 2601:742:8100:B070:B53B:C5F8:D5E3:1233 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right. We should ignore the news with their professional, trained journalists. In future I'll get everything I need from Internet Historian on Youtube. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is a journalist trained in actually understanding reality proper, I suppose what they say must be true because they said it. Its not as if the news has ever warped any sort of information in pursuit of profit or a political agenda. No they are professional, meaning that beyond any sort of criticism or even failure to report only the truth. 2601:742:8100:B070:B53B:C5F8:D5E3:1233 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The "professional, trained journalists" that have never once lied in the way their articles and reporting on things that they are in-fact, paid for the more scandalous their reporting is? The video literally shows proof of what was said, both in writing and in video form, and the fact Richard got pardoned means that it perhaps isn't as much of a hoax as your power tripping ass deems it is. You're a wikipedia moderator, get a life. Xhyphontic (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This conversation is chilling. I'm genuinely taken aback in disbelief that these people are ignoring the mountains of empirical evidence conclusively proving the police lied and the man was wrongly convicted, simply shrugging it off as "conspiracy theories". It's also terrifying to see their belief that "professional, trained journalists" are infallible, and that their conjecture and demonstrable lies are more trustworthy than the hard documented evidence. 84.71.151.244 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You clearly didn't watch the video anyways. It's on Internet Historian's channel, but he doesn't say hardly anything. It's almost entirely Richard Heene explaining his side of the story accompanied by police photos, video recordings from interviews, and written testimony from investigators and authorities which directly contradict the story told by the police. He outlines exactly why he took the plea deal. He outlines why his wife "plead guilty", corroborated by an actual recording of that interview. He points out many lies by the police and even outlines a reasonable motive for them. It's not a conspiracy. It's textbook corruption of justice. 173.27.45.166 (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)