User talk:Balloonman

Unless otherwise specified, I will respond to you on the page where the conversation started, whether that is your talk page or mine.

Home Talk Contributions Blocks Deletions Moves Protections monobook.js Userspace

Archive box

{{Talkback|Balloonman|RE: }}

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

I thank you for your measured responses

Obviously I'm talking about my show trial, but there's a point I just can't seem to get across, which is that civility is just one of the pillars, not the primary pillar. I defy anyone to try and defend a high-profile article against the other pillars without occasionally losing their rag. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is (or should be) about all of the pillars and the balance between them. I've also noticed and appreciated Balloonman's measured comments, and broadly agree with the comments he made in response here. The more reasoned comments there are, the better. Geometry guy 23:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That is an excellent point... which, as you point out, hasn't really come accross. I've had several discussions where my behavior hasn't been exempliary... and I'm certain that just about everybody who works on this project has as well. You have the distinction of working in a lot of places... which is one of the things that makes your efforts here special.

Most people are productive workers in their silos of interest. Your silo of interest is to make WP better written and more accurate. Thus, you'll work on almost any article where there is somebody interested in improving it. Unfortunately, you can be an ass/arse, and I say that in the most respectful way possible. Your behavior can be appalling... and you know it. Personally, I hope you survive this, but at the same time I would love to see changes within you and (unfortunately) ArbCOM has to do something. In the end, your past behavior can't continue unabated. The question becomes what do they do?

Anyways, thanks for the compliment---coming from you it does mean something to me. I have a lot of respect for your contributions and opinion.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite my above remarks, I came here because I have been shocked and offended by your recent language at the Arbitration Workshop. Your introduction of a "c-word" during otherwise intelligent discussion was totally unacceptable, and showed no respect for the sensibilities of other contributing editors, some of whom have a deeply ingrained education in the formation of words and appropriate usages thereof. You trampled with blatant disregard over these editors' feelings by referring to Wikipedia as a "consensusology". I can hardly bear to repeat this c-word even as I type.

The suffix "-logy" comes from the Greek "logos", referring to speach, discourse, or reason, and means "study of" in both Latin (as -logia) and English. How could you even contemplate using such an ugly word formation, which effectively describes Wikipedia's governance model as "the study of consensus"? You didn't even drop the "-us" suffix. May I politely suggest that the next time you choose to opine upon the nature of Wikipedia by coining new words, that you seek advice from a classical scholar. In this case "consentocracy" or "consensocracy" would have cause far less widespread offense than your carelessly deployed c-word. Many thanks, Geometry guy 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ROFLMAOYSST! And that is why I need more people with an understanding of Greek/Latin... to help me fix my linguistical limitations.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll survive it or I won't Balloonman, but one thing I won't be doing is changing. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

One can still hope ;-) But like I said, I hope you survive, your contributions here are very appreciated... and I am preparing some evidence (mostly) on your behalf... I haven't reviewed the evidence page too closely, but I think I'll be presenting something new.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm a sinking ship, so don't waste too much time on it. This ArbCom case reminds me very much of my first RfA: editors I'd never heard of orchestrated by ... well, no names no pack drill ... popping out of the woodwork to say what a shit I am, without in many cases a scrap of evidence. I've been amazed at what some of them have been allowed to get away with. Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's likely you'll be topic banned from RfA, much less likely you'll be banned outright. You certainly have the ability to interact appropriately, something that the committee in general recognizes. If you exercised restraint in suffering those you believe to be fools without resorting to impoliteness (and none of us believe you don't know how to be polite or what constitutes polite interaction), then all this would be unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed... your behavior these past two weeks (from what I've seen) has been fine... and you've been under a lot of stress. If you can keep your cool now, then you could keep it elsewhere. Nobody is reasonably expecting you to turn into a saint overnight... I don't expect you not to be offensive in the future... but if you could figure out a way not to go over the line and step it down when things get riled up... But I do plan on submitting evidence about your value to the project.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to change. If Wikipedia can't cope with me that's Wikipedia's problem, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 07:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

2/3rds of my evidence is done... just need to finish my counts. But you should get the general gist.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very kind of you, but it's too much work, and who'll read it anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will I have --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have--Amalthea 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't reviewed my initial unblock since then... didn't realize I had the honor of unblocking Mal first!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Trust me, at the time, I thought it was only a matter of time before Malleus dug his own grave and I reviewed your block thinking that he had." With friends like that, who needs enemies? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

hehe ;-) See YOU are reading what I write! I just didn't think it would take 4 years for you to dig that grave... I thought you were using heavy duty construction equipment, but it turns out you were using a baby spoon.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

While I may not be your best ally (I do think your behavior could stand to improve and haven't hid that fact... or the fact that I do support some sort of sanctioning... I don't want to lose you as a contributor here) I suspect that my stance in this ArbCOM case will ensure that I will never be elected to ArbCOM... which seeing the hell that they go through is a GOOD thing! ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Now, really? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Methinks it's funny and it's basically what Malleus expects ;-) ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was funny too, and yes, it's pretty much what I expect. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

ummm ...

dif Please, please, PLEASE will somebody clue this kid in???? — Ched :  ?  15:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this an admission of your own impotence, or a demonstration that you consistently reach the wrong conclusion? My76Strat (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK .. whatever. You're absolutely right - I don't know anything. And ya know, the funny thing is .. I actually wanted to help you, but I can see that you are far more aware than I am. — Ched :  ?  16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your stated intentions. I am not opposed to criticism nor candid discourse. I don't know where you believe I have ever indicated you know nothing or that I presume to know more. My intention here was two fold, to advise you I was aware of this post, and give indication that I prefer direct dialogue opposed to what I had seen here. Anything more than that is extraneous. My76Strat (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You ask if I'm either impotent or consistently wrong, and then say you "don't know where you believe I have ever indicated you know nothing or that I presume to know more". I have trouble grasping the logic there. You are "aware of this post"; good for you, you know how to stalk my contribs. I came here because I've known of Balloonman for years, and consider him extremely adept at explaining proper conduct on Wikipedia; far better than I. Now, I have no desire to trouble Spartacus further. If you want direct dialog, then my talk page is that way >>> — Ched :  ?  17:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

First, Ched, while I agree that Strat's comment was umm.... I don't know how to describe it... weird? Awkward? On the surface disengenuous? I'm not sure if posting it here was the proper recourse... especially the way you did. (Also, unless you made similar posts on numerous other pages where he responded---which would be CANVAS on your part---then accusing him of stalking is an assumption of bad faith because you don't know if he has my page watchlisted from when we discoursed over his RfA... if you did make numerous similar posts besmirching him elsewhere, then he would be justified in such stalking. I know I would check out somebody's edits if I saw them make the above comment on another user's page.)

Second, Strat---you do understand why that comment has everyone shaking their head? It was like the lead prosecutor coming to the accused when the jury goes out for deliberations and says, "I hope you are exhonorated." You might honestly wish Malleus the best, but your posts during his trial appeared much more condemnatory. Your posts during the trail, felt more like part of the lynch mob than somebody seeking a fair outcome. Again, that may not have been your intent, but it is what others saw. There is a distinct disconnect between that comment wishing him a fair outcome and your comments during the evidence gathering phase.

Third, thanks for realizing that this discussion had taken a turn for the worst and ceased having it on my page.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have troubled you. My Strat and I have discussed things to hopefully an agreeable point now. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  12:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Balloonman for that insight. You are correct in all regards. I do realize that my comment seemed out of context. I've agreed to not post to MF's page again to avoid further anguish. My only rational defense, and why I presumed it wouldn't seem so disingenuous was in wishing him fairness. In all honesty I don't believe exoneration would be a fair outcome, nor do I believe an excessive sanction to be fair. So truly, I hope the case resolves fairly. I could have kept that to myself, and should have. To close on a positive note, you may all thank your lucky stars soon enough for I am nearing my final post and today, am a day closer to having it published. Until then, I will considerably curtail my interim posts, having exhausted my vocabulary for not. My76Strat (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been following these discussions and am glad they have resolved themselves. In case another outside view helps, I would note that I did not find My76Strat's comment at MF-Talk disingenuous. I interpreted it in much the same way as My76Strat now explains: that a "fair outcome" means one that neither exonerates nor unjustly sanctions. Perhaps this is because I am an editor who can also be strongly critical of Malleus, despite generally supporting and praising his contributions and agreeing with many of his views. The way My76Strat opened his post ("I could use a bit of that snark-dust myself." i.e., "I would benefit from Pesky's anti-snark magic") set a tone of humility: "Nobody's perfect, me included" or even "There but for the grace of God go I", effectively admitting some hypocrisy in being so critical of MF. In that context the second sentence begins to look more like an apology for unfairly pressing the case against MF so vigorously at Arbcom. Consequently I didn't understand what the problem was until it was explained that the post could be viewed as a taunt.

All of which goes to show, I think, how fraught with difficulty communication over a text-based medium can be (it is hard enough face-to-face sometimes): misunderstandings and misinterpretations arise all too easily. There are two responses to this problem, both of which I think are important. First, we should all try to express ourselves with clarity, avoiding ambiguity, subtexts, and posts whose underlying intentions are unclear or implicit. Secondly, we should all try to take other editors' posts at face value, and avoid reading into them intentions (particularly negative ones) which are not explicit. Geometry guy 15:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree... while Strat's comment caused me to shake my head a little, I wasn't going to let it get me worked up as I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I wanted to make sure that he understood why some people responded the way they did to it. As for Strat's final edit here... I hope that doesn't mean that you intend to leave this cess pool place. While some have come after you hard for your views on Malleus and elsewhere, I know that your heart is in the right place.

As for Malleus... he knows (or should know by now) that I deem him as a definite net positive on Wikipedia... 90% of his edits are of the top quality... which means he's made over 100K great edits---which is more than most people can claim. Unfortunately, 5% of his edits are of the worst quality... which means that he's made over 5K of lousy edits---which is more than most people can claim. While I wish he could learn to bite his tongue sometimes, the overwhelming perponderance of positive edits forces me to support him.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Balloonman, again thank you. I assure you no words have been wasted on me. I have extracted the counsel with betterment as a goal. Kudos to Geometry guy for offering an analysis of over 99% accuracy. I am glad to know it was at least possible to connect with my intent, upon the read. That does not excuse the fact that in the overall analysis, such a comment would be in poor taste. The better me, the one who has read the above admonitions, wouldn't have done it. The better me won't do it again, ever. The lessor me, who hadn't considered the above counsel, has been bettered by it. I sincerely hope there is a collateral good from this for it would seem wasted if I was the sole beneficiary. My76Strat (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I took no offence at the anti-snark pixie dust comment, and interpreted in exactly the way that Geometry guy described. I will though admit to some astonishment that so soon after acting as the chief prosecutor My76Strat asked for my help with something. That really was expecting too much of me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus, I find tremendous worth in your comment. I regret where I asked you for assistance. That regret set in almost immediately after pressing save. In an epiphany I realized it was practically impossible to rationalize. I appreciate that you were significantly gracious in not cornering me in such a bad place. It was a tremendous lapse in judgement at practically the worst possible time. I apologize for that, and understand completely if you reject its authenticity. I have admitted elsewhere that I failed to consider the stress you would obviously be under, and that is a terrible omission on my part. I almost wish it had been a taunt, at least then it would be an example of using prose for powerful effect. But in truth, it is merely an example of idiocy. I apologize again, for on that day, I was "sorry". My76Strat (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings on my part My76Strat. It's difficult to realise the stress an ArbCom case brings, but I think Giano spoke of it elsewhere. The nearest I can come to describing it is RfA, but there at least you know that at the worst it won't go on for longer than a week, and if it gets too much you can always withdraw. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And Malleus, I have to point this out, you just came out of one of the worst periods of your Wiki-life ever. You've had numerous people insinuating things, accusing you of things, exageratting things, and in some cases lie about things related to you... and you handled yourself more or less exempliary! Were there snarky comments? Yeah, but under the circumstances, I don't think anybody really begrudges you those outbursts. If you responded to the idiots on wikipedia the way you have these past 3 weeks, then we probably would have avoided this circus. I say this because you have proven to me that you have the capacity to do so. You can do it, you just have to make the choice. I know, you've said, "I am who I am" and that you aren't going to change. But what does it cost you to think twice before posting?

Yes, people come after you and bait you... IMHO, there are people who jump the gun based upon your reputation. That being said... you dish it out just as bad and often bait them. IMO, you are better than that---you are better than most of the people you get engaged with and have it within you.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just helping Philcha out with a GA nomination, as a mark of respect for his considerable contributions to that project, along with others such as Geometry guy, something I promised to do a couple of weeks ago. Whether I'll remain here beyond that depends on the sanctions that ArbCom decides to impose; it's not inconceivable that they might be unacceptable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand... which is why I was hoping that you'd have A) acknowledged past transgressions and committed to self reform and B) worked with ArbCOM to find a resolution that would have been mutually acceptable. There will be some sort of action, we both know that. The question is what... I was hoping for a situation where ArbCOM could serve as a Mediator instead of as a Arbitrators. Find a solution that would have worked for both sides... now I fear the resolution will be controversial.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see that as my problem. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I do... your response will go a long way in determining how the resolution is received. If you choose to leave or have a hissy, your supporters will bemoan the injustice of whatever resolution comes out of the pipeline. If you accept it and abide by it, you will undermine a lot of the anti-MF sentiment out there. Is it your problem? Only if you are as mature as I believe you can be. If you are no better than the child admins that you besmirch, then no it isn't. If you don't really care about Wikipedia, then no it isn't. If you do care about this project and are grown up, then yes it is. So, my question is, are you a grown up or a kid? Prove it!

Mal, I have the world of respect for you... and I'm challenging you to prove my faith in you justified.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your comments here, Balloonman, I believe this conversation is premature. Malleus makes provocative edits sometimes in order to be... provocative. Sometimes these edits are ill-judged, but whether they are or not is often in the eye of the beholder. I believe disruptive behavior should be sanctioned, but also that editors have a right to be disruptive if they believe it serves a greater good. No pain, no gain. Geometry guy 01:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My position is perfectly clear. I regret and have apologised for calling Spitfire "one fucking cunt", but I have no other regrets. And I have absolutely no intention of allowing myself to be humiliated for the sake of any project, certainly not this one. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's where I think you are missing an opportunity here. ArbCOM is in a tenuous situation. Your actions over the past 4 years have to be addressed, but you refuse to acknowledge any culpability in the events which have occurred. This refusal forces ArbCOM into a corner. We both know that regardless of what we think, they will have to do something, and whatever they do you probably won't like it. But you are in a situation wherein you could come out as a leader by taking the high road. Help ArbCOM come up with a win-win solution. Help them come up with a resolution that works for both parties and if you do it right, you could come out as the hero and advance your view!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see any of that as my problem. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even though I know you mean well, and understand your context, I think this is worth pointing out: When you offer that MF should think twice before posting, you identify your predisposition that he does not. Personally MF strikes me as one who probably thinks three or more times before posting, so he can be sure he has said what he intended to say. It is often we who come into the conversation with our predispositions so firmly rooted that we consider our take on the prose to in fact be what they mean. Certainly it would be more civil of us, if instead of entering the discussion to tell MF that we didn't appreciate what he had said, if we entered the discussion to say "I'm not sure I understand you correctly, did you mean to say X". It is at least possible that MF might reply to the effect, "No I didn't mean X at all, I meant Y". I don't believe I've ever seen such an option extended to MF, and that is shameful. I can attest first hand at how disconcerting it is for someone to insist they know what you meant without ever showing the slightest interest in considering an alternative, or an inkling to consider the writers perspective. My76Strat (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, he seems to know what he wants to say before he types. Whether he does the right thing is up to him. No one is forcing him to act the way he does. Him not wanting to acknowledge his past problems shows his true character. Excuse me for this, but I do think the project would benefit from his dismissal. Regards. 68.96.45.234 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Which speaks to your value to the project! It would have been a great piece of evidence---again because it would show that your chief prosescutor sees value in what you bring.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk page archive gone poof?

Hi Baloonman. Sorry to bless you with this inquiry but, as yours is the first admin name that I recall from the "Gore Effect" discussion of some time ago, in a recent trip down "Gore Effect" memory lane, I noted that the active talk page and the entire talk page archive for that article has gone poof! I'm rather convinced the "redirect" manipulations are the culprit but this stuff is beyond my ken...so I thought I'd FYI you for some possible corrective action or referral to some more appropriate venue. Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Update...apparently the original article was recently subjected to an undiscussed move and retitled. I am of the opinion that this move should be reverted and the original article title restored...which should also, hopefully, restore both the original talk page and its extensive archive. Any assistance in this regard would be appreciated as these "moves" can be (apparently) somewhat complex and I'm rather ignorant of the considerations/ramifications of this process. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the associated talk page to Talk:Gore Effect. Whether or not the page move is appropriate is left as an exercise for the reader; I note, however, that it was apparently previously titled Gore Effect.  Frank  |  talk  13:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the fix...but I'm still left somewhat confused. I had assumed that the "move" edit summary (moved The Gore Effect to Gore Effect over redirect: "The" shouldn't be in the article name) accurately reflected removal of the article "The" from the original title. If "Gore Effect" was the prior title, the edit would have been unnecessary. Also, the article is still listed as a "T" entry under 'Wikipedia general sanctions'. What am I missing here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure what edit would have been unnecessary. If an article is moved, the talk page should be moved with it, and in this case that step was overlooked. The fact that the article had previously been named Gore Effect is not the point. Also, it's quite possible that whoever moved it back didn't know it had previously been named Gore Effect. As for the alphabetical order...I haven't figured that one out, but I now see that you've moved the article back to The Gore Effect, which renders the question moot for the moment. I'm not sure that's the best course of action; your move doesn't seem to have any more consensus (that I can see) than the move it reverses, with your reasoning being lack of consensus.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

your move doesn't seem to have any more consensus (that I can see) than the move it reverses, with your reasoning being lack of consensus.

To the best of my recollection, the article was previously titled "The Gore Effect". That is also the title as reflected the last AfD that Balloonman closed and, as noted above, was apparently the title that existed when the most recent alphabetized list of "Wikipedia general sanctions" was generated. I'd suggest that a "consensus" is implied by the prior stability of the title, but that's certainly only my .02 on that particular subject. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I've restored the original title. Thanks for the consideration and assistance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me like you've restored the previous title, not the original title.  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And, BTW, you didn't move any of the archive sub-pages, which is a little frustrating because that was the whole reason for this thread (and the reason I got involved) in the first place - to fix something that is now broken again.  Frank  |  talk  15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies...Shall I then revert my edit? I simply wish to restore the entire body to where it was before the undiscussed move. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had stated that as your true intention at the beginning, this would have been much simpler. I see two choices here: move the individual archive pages one-by-one, or move the talk page back and then restore it to where you want it again, checking the box that says "move sub-pages". (A third option - robot-assisted cleanup - exists, of course, but by the time you explain it to someone, you could just do the moves.)  Frank  |  talk  15:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Or a 4th option? Implore someone who apparently knows what they're doing to do it? ;-) JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please don't take this as any endorsement of one name over another; I'm simply cleaning up a mess. I rather think your characterization of it as an "undiscussed move" is little different than your own move back, but I have no opinion on what the actual article title should be (nor even whether it should exist, which is, of course, another story). Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help. I have amended my comment in Talk:The Gore Effect to reflect your comments here, hopefully to your satisfaction...and now, apparently, not to someone else's. Oy vey. I feel a headache coming on. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. My "disclaimer" above was more a general disclaimer so that someone looking at this (which, as you note, has already started) wouldn't draw any conclusion from my involvement in the move cleanup. I wasn't suggesting you needed to change anything "to my satisfaction" but rather I was just "noting for posterity". Nevertheless, Talk:The Gore Effect is probably the best place for further discussion, and we can stop peppering poor Balloonman with orange bars. We now return him to his regularly scheduled editing. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dave Logan (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Hastings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Balloonman, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments? :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Because you have earned it...

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Balloonman, I have seen your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ where you have defended the integrity of an RfA despite your personal opposition to the candidature. You have made repeated posts to emphasise the importance of the principles behind WP:CLEANSTART, even though the process has arguably been misused in this case. Despite there being an opportunity to push for a new RfA or for a resignation, you have instead chosen to point out that Fæ's disclosures at the time were found to be satisfactory to the !voters. Your actions have demonstrated true integrity, which I applaud for which I thank you. EdChem (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you... like I said, I don't think he should have been promoted in the first place... and I feared this event. But I was vastly outvoted. Fae made confessions that the community accepted (IMO) in err, but they gave him a pass knowing the risk.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Balloonman, In Fæ's RFC you made the comment. "and that Fae was worried enough about his old identity sabotoguing his RfA that he didn't want to reveal it". I've reread that RFA yet again, and I still can't see anything in it where Fæ says that if his identity was known the RFA would fail. John Vandenberg who had the advantage of seeing both accounts thought there would have been the same amount of opposition - some of the opposers per cleanstart wouldn't have opposed but others would have opposed in their place. If either Fæ or John Vandenberg had said the RFA would fail if we knew the identity of the candidate then I would not have supported. But on my reading the only people alleging that in the RFA were in the Oppose and Neutral camps. Have I missed a comment by Fae elsewhere to the effect that he needed to hide his previous account in order to run? Or is it merely your assumption re his motivation? ϢereSpielChequers 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to take a closer look at the RfA... it was a year ago and like a lot of contentious activities, there was discussion in several places---so I don't remember where exactly I got that impression. But I'll see if I could find it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, if the previous account was as suspected, I find it surprising that John thought there would have been the same amount of opposition had the previous identity been known. I think I would have formed rather a different view had I been aware of it. I did consider asking about the previous identity qua bureaucrat rather opposing qua editor. I rather wish I had now... WJBscribe (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Of course much would depend on whether Fae has stayed away from the topic where his previous account was contentious, and how he performed in the RFA. The previous account had a clean blocklog, but you can have a clean blocklog despite having level 4 warnings for vandalism, personal attacks, creating a hoax page, paid editing or indeed being blocked on multiple other Wikimedia projects. If his previous account was Ash and if Fae has stayed away from articles on gay pornstars then I suspect he would have passed. Of course it would have been a totally different RFA, but if his nomination acceptance had been This was a cleanstart account, however I'm now waiving the cleanstart and linking to my former account. My previous account was ******* it made the following mistakes ***** and ******. But I've learned X, Y and Z from that and I think I'm now ready for adminship. Much would have depended on how convincing it was that he'd understood previous mistakes and learned from them. But in my view he could have done rather better than the 85% that he actually got. ϢereSpielChequers 13:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Argh, my computer has frozen itself on this response twice now... 3 times is the charm!

Anyways, I don't think the 'crats did anything wrong in this particular scenario. I can't fault Rambling Man for the promotion... I mean, one would be hard pressed to reject a case with 85 percent support. The most the 'crats could have done would be to refuse to promote and add their names as opposes with that declaration. I think if the 'crats had done that, then some people may have reconsidered their !vote. I also don't think it is necessarily the 'crats role to vet a candidate when ArbCOM supposedly already had. (I say supposedly because a comment made last night on Fae's page kind of implies that John didn't vet the old account as closely as he implied during the RfA---I haven't been to the page since last night, so he may have responded to my challenge.) But in theory, John (and other ArbCOM members reviewed the case and accepted the changes. That being said, I found it ironic that the community blindly accepted John's review of the old account without question. Generally a single reviewer has not been enough to get a free pass.

As for whether or not he would have passed had he been open about his identity? I honestly don't know. I do know that it would have avoided later drahma. I KNEW this day would come, but the community chose to ignore the abnormalities and promote. But what gets me aren't the people like WSC who supported and still support, but the ones that supported and are now crying foul. Was everything as pristine as they thought? No. But the community chose to accept the word of John as Gospel and decided that it didn't want to dig deeper.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the whole of Arbcom knew, one Arb reviewed the previous account and said what he said, and at least one other Arb supported. No Arb opposed. It's unfortunate that Lar is not around to confirm what JV said about his views. At the time I took some reassurance in the actions of the Arbs, and I still do. My worry then was that the previous account might have been up to stuff that would indicate that Fae would be a bad admin, and no-one is saying that he's a bad admin. I concluded that if that had been the case we'd have seen a different response from JV and the other Arbs, an Arb opposing with "Forgiveness and cleanstarts are fine, but I'd like the previous account to be dormant for another year", and that RFA would have collapsed just as surely as it would if the candiate had said "I can't reveal the name of my former account because the RFA will fail". That didn't happen, and I think the Arbs made the right call. We have had a previous occurrence where the community agreed to have one trusted editor review the previous account and say whether it should be disregarded. Unfortunately the editor chosen got banned during the RFA, hence the idea that it should be Arbs who do this. As for knowing that the previous account would come out, I disagree with you. I think that if Fae had not been elected to the UK board, and if he'd been a bit more cautious about his privacy, then it might not have come out. But we have to accept that Chapter and GLAM members are going to be public and the trolls will target them. As for Arbcom, I can see this leading to some fascinating questions in the next Arbcom election:). ϢereSpielChequers 19:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction

Hi, I know that you and some other opposers in my RFA assumed that I believed that if people knew my previous username my RFA would have failed. Please don't keep saying it as if I'd said that myself. It is incorrect and unfortunately makes those who supported me appear rather foolish. Thanks for your help. --Fæ (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

about your supporters...

Ok ok, since I can't find it, I won't write it anymore. I know that was my impression from a year ago and I thought you had alluded to it as the reason not to share your name. But since I can't find it, I won't say it.

Anyways, while I do think you shouldn't have been promoted with this in the closet, I don't think the witch hunt is appropriate either. Anyways, good luck.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Does RfA still exist? I had thought it was eliminated by the Organian Peace Treaty. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That could be the most rational explanation so far for what has happened to it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Illuminating statistics. I'm happy to see that you endeavor to be accurate. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmmm, I wonder who is more precise?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Dewey

I added some more refs to the article with a few more tidbits. Did a DYK nomination with your name attached. It's at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_February_3. Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I was going to do some more work on it as well with the thought of getting it to DYK... I am planning on starting an article on Balloon Conventions this weekend. I was going to do it on Twist & Shout only, but can't find much in the way of independent sources. So figured I'd start with the Balloon Conventions article and then home in on some of the bigger conventions. (Obviously, I'm not at T&S myself :( )---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just took a look at the article, we need to increase the size by about 300 characters or it will probably be rejected at DYK. It's a little short for a DYK.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Expanded---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hello! Your submission of Ralph Dewey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mgrē@sŏn 15:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I pasted this here; reviewer had put it in the wrong place. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I was wondering about that... but since then I've expanded it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
      • You mean, you pumped it up some? I can see what you're doing, Balloonman: you are trying to eradicate Wikipedia and humanity and replace us with balloons. I expect you to run for 'crat soon, with the argument that the current ones are too heavy. Well, your evil plan is not going to work, inflatable pal. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I have zero intention of running for 'crat... but if I ever did, I wouldn't have to rely on Meat Puppets or Sock Puppets to ensure that I'd pass... I'll have my own army of...

          

          The First member of Balloonman's army of Latex Puppets!

<--AAAARGGH! (That's fantastic...) You know, you are seriously straying into WP:NOREVOLUTION territory. I may have to FB Jimbo about this. In other news, I think the LadyofShalott is unfaithful to me (she declined a speedy), and I'm wondering if she's maybe in love with you. Drmies (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wait--that's Santa Claus! You evil man! Drmies (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh fudge. Thought I was doing something good, but now a balloon army is going to descend up on the world and Lady was unfaithful to Drmies. That was only my 2nd DYK doohickey. I'm not going to do a 3rd as the world may end. Bgwhite (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No, you were doing something good... just make sure you know the requirements first ;-) Plus, I was thinking this would be a great April Fools Day DYK--- something to the effect of Ralph Dewey blowing up animals for Jesus.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW Drmies---the santa is one that I actually made. As are most of the images on the balloon modelling page.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see. Look at what I've done: if you don't see something odd that needs changing immediately you're not looking carefully enough. ;) Drmies (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of heading over to your page and slapping a big "vandal" tag on it... if you can't tell what something is, don't use it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't template the regulars. Ha, I thought it was a Santa, but then I clicked to enlarge the image, and I didn't see it anymore. Question is, is it really balloon modelling? It looks neat, but are the balloons bent and knotted? Something else--I tried to look for some book sources, but couldn't find any at all. Referencing that article is going to be difficult. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

YEs, it is balloon modelling... it is decotwisting/decorative art.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"that Ralph Dewey blows up animals for Jesus?" You are sick and twisted Balloonman. It is an honor to know someone as deranged as you are. Bgwhite (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer twisted ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Fae

Hey Balloonman .. I noticed you've been active in the Fae issue(s). I have no idea if it's relevant or not, but I remember 2 AC cases that may have some precedent. (or not) ... there was the desysop of user:Pastor Theo (sock issues IIRC), and the law/the_undertow case. I took a quick look, but can't make heads or tails of the AC archives. Just thought I'd drop a note. — Ched :  ?  23:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There are distinct differences between Pastor Theo and law/Undertow. In both of those cases, a banned person came back and regained the bit without revealing his past. Ash/Fae's RfA was unusual in that Fae admitted right from the get go that he had a prior account that had an RfCU; but he contacted ArbCOM to let them know about the account before running, and had an Arb testify on his behalf. So while his previous identity was unknown during the RfA we knew he had a past, yet the community decided that it didn't need to know the particulars and voted overwhelmingly to support his RfA.

Was it a mistake? IMO yes. I thought it was ridiculous that we were going to promote somebody without being able to review their edits or know what the RfCU was about---and that the RfCU could have been as little as a year prior. I was Fae's biggest critic during the RfA. IMO I think they were lenient because there was a strong sentiment at the time that we weren't forgiving and too harsh at RfA (which we were) and people wanted to use this as an example of how forgiving we could be.

But the community decided to trust that the Arb's judgment and review was sufficeint and promoted him overwhelmingly. I disagreed, but the 'crat made the right call in promoting. Fast forward a year, Fae's identity is now known and some of the people who supported last year feel snookered and want him to step down. I am now one of Fae's biggest defenders. I don't know if he's a good admin, but no evidence has been presented that he isn't nor has anything material been presented that the issues that led to the RfCU are ongoing. Thus, while I think his promotion a year go was a mistake, I do not think we have the basis for jury nullification or to demand a recall. We promoted him knowing that we might later find out that he was somebody controversial; but the community made that decision by a margin of 128 to 28. So having his identity revealed is not, IMO, sufficeint grounds to revoke the RfA results.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I started to follow it a bit in the beginning, but it quickly devolved into a mudslinging contest that I wanted no part of. Basically, I agree with you. I looked at the RfA, and other than the "meh, it's ok - current edits are good" supports - I was surprised at some of the John V. comments. I realize he was placed in a difficult situation, and I respect that. Transparency vs. Privacy is a fine line; but at RfA, I think scrutiny is a better measuring stick. He was promoted. .. oh well - you made your bed, and now you're going to complain about the wrinkles? .. tough. Personally if it were me in Fae's position, I'd at one point have said - "fine, if it's going to cause that much turmoil - then here's my tools", but his choice to hold on is just that .. his choice. Either way, I admire your dedication and judgment in much here. Thanks for the use of your talk page. :) cheers. — Ched :  ?  00:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yuppers... we made our bed and we have to lie in it. That being said, if Fae is a good admin, why would we want to kick him out of the bed now?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm only now starting to see that being a good admin. is a far cry from simply not being a bad admin ... lol. But yep .. you are indeed correct on that one. :) — Ched :  ?  06:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review. Thank you. v/r - TP 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Request Advice: The Wise Balloonman

Good morning (for me), Balloonman! I hope is well for you. May I request your input on a short issue I brought up on Sirex98's talk page? The header name is "Requesting Advice"" and the edit in question was on Men Nguyen's article. All the best. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Escalation by Cla68

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors - I suspect you will have a view on this. Prioryman (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Followup question

Thanks for you answer at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision, although I'm still not sure I follow. It is an anal process question, and may not be central to that discussion so I'm asking here.

I do understand that the 'crats have the responsibility for "policing" RFA. I am not sure whether you are suggesting that:

1. Given that the 'crats already have this responsibility, why not just leave it in their hands, rather than specifically giving an authority to admins over and above what they would normally be able to do? or
2. Specifically instructing the 'crats to pay particular attention to MF, and intervene if he is disruptive

I'm guessing that your answer is the first, but I'm curious about the process - does ArbCom have authority to change the job decryption of 'crats? My guess is no, but I don't have anything to point to, so wondering what you think.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather see the 'crats start to police their area more in general.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This idea that I've ever been a disruptive influence at WP:RFA (as opposed to WT:RFA) is just plain nonsense. And as I've said on the proposed decision talk page, to allow individual administrators to block for anything one of them takes exception to will effectively mean that any opposing vote will end up as a de facto ban from all of RfA. If that's the intention then ArbCom ought to implement the wider ban, not just from the talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been a few cases where (if memory serves me) you did get involved in badgering of supports/opposes, but for the most part I don't disagree. I don't like the idea of any admin having the ability to ban you from an RfA just because you said, "Oppose candidate is a nit."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that many, unless they weren't added to the evidence. Unless I missed something, there are only twelve edits on the evidence list from RFA, only seven of which came from MF. A couple deserve a rebuke, but this isn't the sort of evidence that deserves a ban.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the actual target of any sanctions or the specific location, my problem with these sort of "admins can enforce" rules is two fold. On one hand, we have the well-documented instances of admins over-enforcing or enforcing in favor of their friends. At the same time though, we have the problem of finality. An Arbcom decision is final in that it can't be changed without a new vote of the arbs in a new request. Also, an Arbcom decision diffuses responsibility in that it is the product of a vote of a group of people. These "admins can enforce" rules put the entire burden on one administrator. I have seen so many instances where an administrator makes a difficult but good call and is then questioned and clarified to for the next two weeks by the target and the target's friends that the administrator must not have considered a specific fact, should be more lenient, should consider some alternative arrangement, etc. Making more decisions final (even if they are bad, all processes will result in a certain percentage of bad decisions and it is simply a tradeoff of efficiency and error-rate) and not alterable would not be easy, but would improve this second problem. MBisanz ^talk 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that you like the idea of having the 'crats do it? Because that is what I am hearing. By putting it into the hands of the 'crats we are putting it into the hands of people who are supposed to remain neutral anyways. Most 'crats avoid !voting in RfA's unless they have strong feelings about specific candidates. I have more faith in the dozen or so 'crats to keep an eye on things and to administer this issue fairly, than I do the hoards of admins who clearly can't.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Def not; see my point about diffusion of responsibility. Giving a crat the reversible power to ban or sanction someone just means that crat will be hectored for weeks on end whenever they do something. You may trust them more (and I trust myself a lot), but I do not want that level of people asking me to clarify, reconsider, look into or rethink things. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is actually an argument in favor of it... it means that such actions wouldn't be taken willy nilly and would only be done when the case was egregious. It would also help the 'crats to identify the line upon which the community wishes to enforce civility at RfA.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't identifying the egregious cases, the problem is insulating the person who has to deal with it from the efforts of the two sides of the case. It's why you can't question a jury or ask them to explain how they arrived at a verdict; if you could, they would feel pressure and be less likely to take action. I can't speak for my fellow crats, but I am nearly positive we do not want any role that involves interpreting user conduct or sanctioning people. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I recognize my position is diametrically opposite to what I said in Dweller's RFB. Age and experience has changed my mind on the role of crats. MBisanz ^talk 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

Hi Balloonman, can I please ask you to rephrase he cane be a blistering sore and a infection that has to be needled out (in this edit). Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do, then you may remove my comment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in learning more about the moral code that allows you Balloonman to call me "a blistering sore and a infection that has to be needled out", yet condemns me for calling an unnamed subset of administrators "dishonest cunts". Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't condemn you for that--- in fact, if you remember correctly, I was one of your bigger defenders in that regard. You've converted me to a certain degree... and I know that you can take it and that YOU need to hear it in stronger terms than others, otherwise you won't absorb it. But, yes, I do use stronger language when dealing with you than I do with others, but that is because to reach you it takes a sledge hammer a feather won't work.

The one thing that I wish you could do is back down from a pissing match and admit when you crossed the line. When somebody challenges you (as Salvio did here with me) to go back and make the necessary edits/fix the situation. Instead, when you are challenged you stir the kettle and tempt people to respond. You don't say, "You're right, I crossed the line." Instead, you try to justify your actions by demeaning those who called you out. That is your problem.

Malleus, you are a hell of an asset and I'm glad that it doesn't appear that you won't be blocked. And I'm not ashamed of defending you during your ArbCOM case, but if you don't learn to reign in your sardonic wit, it is only a matter of time before Malleus 2. I know, you've said it numerous times, you aren't going to change. To which I'm sorry. I wish you would... as great of an asset as I see you, I think you could be twice that if you learned to think twice before hitting that enter button. (Yes, I often write responses to people telling them what I WANT to tell them, but then move on without saving it.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC) PS and lest it goes unsaid, I probably used too graphic of a metaphor in describing your contributions to WT:RFA... so if I offended, I do apologize... but your edits there do tend to get you riled up and we do tend to see the worst of you there... being banned from that page is probably a good thing for you and for the community.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't at all take offence at your "a blistering sore and a infection that has to be needled out" comment, so no need for an apology, I was just curious as to how you might justify it against the backdrop of my proposed lynching. But as you say, for better or for worse, I ain't gonna change, no matter how many admonishments. The thing is, I don't see that as my problem. I see it as Wikipedia's problem, in being utterly incapable of dealing with an unconstrained free thinker. I'd have to admit though that Geometry guy is right in suggesting that I do sometimes deliberately provoke disagreement, but I only do so with the best of intentions; as David Hume said, "truth springs from disagreement among friends". Malleus Fatuorum 06:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And in all honesty, I'm more curt with you to see if anybody will call me out ;-) I found it very intersting that nobody said anything about my use of spaz until I explained that it has different connotations elsewhere than it does here... then suddenly I get people complaining!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"during his duration"?

Sorry, but that doesn't sound like correct English. Was he wearing jeans pants? Maybe "during his tenure" would sound better? I won't change it on you, but think it could be worded better.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PGood gawd, I wrote that... you're right. I didn't like your revision, so I was trying something different... obviously, I should have thought about the whole sentence not just the word in question.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't feel too bad, I almost typed the same thing, then did whatever I did because I didn't like the way it sounded. I wasn't that happy with what I wrote, but whatever was there prior made the paragraph seem redundant. You did a good job overall with that one. My only minor complaint was using priest vs chaplain.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It was one of those funny issues. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, he is a priest. But from what I can tell, he was hired by a Catholic to be the teams chaplian. So that I kinda used the terms interchangeably.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

HELP

Look at this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gizza_source and look at there edits please thanks Jena (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things:

1) I would suggest opening an ANI case on this. This person does appear to have an agenda of deleting all "lists of" which doesn't have sources. To a certain degree, he does have policy on his side. To a practicle degree, there might not be consensus to do so. NOTE: If you do report him to ANI, you have to notify him and can notify anybody else who may be involved. (E.g. other editors who are disputing the other lists he's involved with and potentially Wikiprojects who have tagged the articles as part of their area of interests. Just make sure that on the ANI report that you are up front about such notices and that you do so in a neutral manner.)

2) In the meantime, provide sources. On the Wiggles, it would be fairly easy as the DVD's on which people appear is listed, you simple add a link to said DVD. On the others it gets a little harder as you'd have to eihter be able to provide a third party source citing a specific individual or provide the episode specific details.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok if it keeps up I will do an ANI but I will waite and see whats happens first thanks! Jena (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to work on this in your sandbox and find sources first. The WP:burden is on you to find sources before you revert unsourced material WP:Verification. There is no rush, take your time and slowly add the names back to the list when you find a source for each name. That is policy. I do not want to delete this list or any list. Do the work finding sources and stop your unhelpful reverts. You actions are damaging wiki. Gizza source (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Balloonman, I do not have an agenda. I would have nominated these lists for deletion, if deletion for the sake of deletion was my goal. My goal is wiki's goal: to follow and protect the core policy and pillar WP:verification, and protect the credibility of lists by preventing vandalism to these unsourced name lists which further collapse the pillar. My goal is to prod users into actually following WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:NOR so that these lists, if notable, can be kept because they are sourced. If that is an ANI offense, then I will plead guilty, but I think you have encouraged Jena (talk) to continue her many disruptive unsourced edits by even suggesting such an action. I see nothing in her response that she intends to find any sources. I do see her waiting to bring me to ANI, as you suggested. I am disappointed that as an administrator you even suggested that fallback plan to her now, instead of insisting she find sources first and foremost as her main path to keeping unsourced material. You gave her an easy out for not finding sources. Your apparent friend Jena (talk) insists on keeping unsourced material in violation of core policy, makes no efforts to source material and makes no comments in her edit summaries which could point to any policy violation which she believes warrants reverting unsourced material. But you must already know this about her, so what is your goal? She has recently been blocked for wanting to keep unsourced material on the main article the Wiggles. She also recently falsely accused me of vandalism on my talk page, which she removed when I informed her I was "considering" reporting her derogatory and deceptive accusations. It does not surpise me she is now engaged here, searching for a way to keep unsourced material by removing me from the picture, rather than working to find sources and then slowly adding the sourced names back to the list article. Why this need to ignore WP:V and WP:Burden which undermine wiki credibility? I believe as the second largest contributor to this particular Wiggles list, she is claiming WP:Ownership and has shown no interest thru the years of finding sources. Even if she did own the list article, core policy still would not allow her to insist on keeping unsourced material. I have further explained in detail my goals and reasoning on my talk page and would please request any further comments about this be posted there. Gizza source (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't appreciate the assumptions of bad faith here... I haven't worked with Antonio Rocks in YEARS... She came to me and I gave her suggestions. Second, you do have an agenda... to get sources... one which I didn't act against, because as I mentioned you do have policy to stand on. She should get the sources (for the Wiggles, it would be easy as they are already listed by DVD.) But if she isn't happy she could take it to ANI---which is the appropriate forum to begin with. At ANI, there could be a discussion as to speed at which these changes are being made and priority of doing so. Is being a guest star on a TV series/the Wiggles really a BLP concern? Personally, I don't think it is that big of a deal... others from other project may say no. But that would be the place to discuss it---not here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for my wrong assumptions. In my plea for forgiveness, two editors plastered my talk page with bad faith accusations and warnings of vandalism and I was in a defensive mindset when one engaged you here. Sorry sir. Fresh start?Gizza source (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility decision

I'm just bringing this thread to user talk to discuss views in a quieter atmosphere. Did you read my comment on why an Arbcom view on John's involvement might be overstretching the evidence and have unfortunate consequences? I think it is an important issue and would welcome your view on it. Geometry guy 23:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I noted that you said it was going to talk, but I couldn't find where (but didn't look too hard.) That being said, I agree. Three people accused him of X and provided X. I find it dis concerting that John admitted to X. John specifically mentioned those three people's evidence when admitting to X. Then he gets convicted of Y, based upon his admission of guilt? I find the finding disconcerting because it addresses a message that was not at play in this case with John. I would not have minded if there was some sort of overarching principle based upon the edit history/past disputes with MF and people rushing the gun to act before consensus had been formed. But this finding bothers me. It was a mistake.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky

You talked to Peter Spector on PumpkinSky's page, please consider to move that that to the addressee, it's an unnecessary duplication, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh??? I responded to David Spector who welcomed PS back. PS is not back. But the message was for both PS and DS. PS really needs to act now if he wants to return to open editing; as is, I fear that he's simply going to create a new sock and edit in hiding---which would comeplete undermine any future attempts at his returning to open editing.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I explained as well, and repeat, because I certainly did not read every entry in the BarkingMoon SPI, you may have missed this one:

"You talk about a dead horse, I talk about living people, being one of them, called a witness. Imagine I was your mother if that helps. I have a hard time reading all this, the words as well as the spirit. As far as I know there was no copyvio issue with BarkingMoon. Looking at the PumpkinSky CCI, I don't see a "copyright violator" either, about 500 articles of the 729 that he touched were checked by twelve rewievers, one sentence was removed, some close paraphrasing found in single sentences, and some code equal in lists of people of Montana to Montana, surprise. His immense additions to the encyclopedia have been described in the CCI as "constructive", "improvements", "gnoming", "helpful", "good". - I lost a friend in real life (he died), PumpkinSky helped with that article and others. - We lost Khazar for the project of making Human rights' fighters known to the world, he left, twice. - THAT - just watching his articles! - is a legacy for which we should use our limited time, not this. My POV, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)"

Update: by now all but 8 articles of 729 were checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel about checking one of those 8? - I really like your comment about "laying the ground work" and think to tackle the bias of "the copyright violator" is a first step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That step is taken, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

More thoughts, and a GA, see top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

...for closing that monstrosity. (A quite reasonable close, too, IMO.) 28bytes (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Z8bytes ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear on that! Balloon- can you clarify, very simply, one point that I'm having an oddly hard time discerning? Is TDA allowed to start said RFC on problematic ARS conduct/initiatives/what-have-you? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the exception... He cannot initiate actions except to start the RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great. Was just double-checking. I hope he does so. Thanks for the well-considered close. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If he doesn't, then a full topic ban goes into place ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Balloon, I find this response together with that emoticon to be terribly inappropriate, on top of some borderline inappropriate comments that read a bit too much like fist pumping.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, it was never intended that way. I often put emoticons on many of my posts... it was there because I know that you will start one to avoid that fate. It is definitely not "fist pumping" because as far as I know, the only interaction we've had was when I saw your name a few weeks ago on my watch list and told you that I liked your name---somebody should always play The Devil's Advocate. Beyond that encounter, I don't know of any interaction between the two of us. And it has been 3 or 4 years or more since I've been to ARS or had any interaction with them. I don't have a dog in this race. So, trust me when I say, the emoticon was not intended to be directed towards your being banned---if that was my objective, I could have closed the ANI report that way, and while some might question it, it probably wouldn't have been overturned---instead I felt there was enough there to warrant an RfC. The statement should that be taken as a rejoinder to Ginseng's post that he hopes you will start an RfC. Too which I have no doubt you will, because if you don't the temporary partial topic ban turns into a full topic ban. The emoticon was thus, intended to convey, "He will." But if you took it personally, I do apologize. It wasn't meant that way.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, sometimes it is hard to get the nuiances of written communications especially when you don't know the other party. Like I said, it was not intended to be "fist pumping" or negative to you, but rather a statement that I was certain that you would follow up with the RfC as discussed in the AN report... and I put a week on there as to A) give you enough time to get the RfC set up/started, B) to prevent gaming of the system, and C) to give both you and your detractors a definitive time frame. Without such a time frame, I could see people raising issues in a few days that you might never start one, thus circumnavigate the parameters... so the time frame is there both as an incentive to you and a protection for you. Nobody is going to badger you in 5-6 days about gaming the system.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible for me to get an extension on this? I have been trying to add compelling evidence as well as talking with other editors to get an idea of how to do this, which caused me to do some substantial reworking, and I just found some more evidence that should be mentioned. Not sure if I will be able to get this ready by tomorrow. Another week should be enough time to get it all sorted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: responded the other day on TDA's page. Figured that the response would be better served there as people might visit that page as compared to coming here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Curious, your extension says it is extended for three days but then suggests it is actually seven. I find it rather confusing. Since the RfC is the only thing allowed presumably your extension would really just be a seven-day extension.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I put a graduated parameter on the extension. You have the full week to get the RfC going. If you don't get it started by Monday, then the full topic ban goes into place and you'll have to petition to get it lifted. If you don't get the RfC started today, then the full topic ban goes into effect today---but will revert back to a partial ban assuming you start the RfC by Monday.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The ban was proposed to stop me from initiating a discussion. So if initiating a discussion is all I am barred from doing then that basically means this is a week-long extension right?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The partial ban was from initiating, the full ban would be preventing you from initiating or partaking in one. So, until you get the RfC going, you're effectively under the full ban. But once the RfC gets started on the subject, then the partial ban resumes---assuming you get it started before end of day Monday.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, that's not what anyone was proposing. In fact, several people explicitly opposed the idea of barring me from discussing the matter at all and I understood the ban as meaning that I would just not be able to start discussions about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look over the ANI report, there was a strong call to have a general topic ban placed on you... but later voices started to argue that a partial ban and/or RfC would be better. Thus, I listened to both sides... Placed the partial ban on there to quell the ongoing disturbances and added the threat of full ban if the desired RfC didn't occur. People who were calling for the partial ban, were also calling for the RfC. But there was definitely calling for a Full Ban OR an RfC. I put the burden on you, get the RfC going and this becomes problematic. Based upon the RfC, it was my hope that the closing admin would better be able to tell if your actions were in spirit with the communities desires.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, several supported it under the impression that it would only forbid me from initiating discussions, not commenting on discussions someone else initiated and the editor who proposed it said comments on discussions were not covered.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: EDog and BLP

Thanks for sharing your opinion on my talk page; I am close to agreeing (which is why I haven't reverted 2005's last edit to Erick Lindgren). However, I'm still trying to get my head around it; and I'm concerned that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has some obligation to provide our readers -- who may at this moment be deciding to enter into a verbal contract with Mr. Lindgren -- with the relevant information that they might never be paid. And that does seem extremely relevant to the biography of a professional gambler. It's not as if my sources were merely a letter to the editor, but since I have Detraction on my watchlist I do recognize it is somewhat complicated. In any case, I've responded to your similar comment on BLP/N. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ARS RfC

I have taken your advice and focused it more clearly on the canvassing issue. Do you have any further input?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is better served by having a narrower focus. You were throwing too many things into the mix and that (IMO) could have caused it to get lost in the shuffle. Vote Stacking and Canvassing were the two issues that I think could garner a response. Of course, that is my opinion and others have had others. Just make sure to get it started tomorrow. 2 weeks should have been enough to get it going.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, would you mind closing this Afd? I mention it in the RfC, but I would rather it not be hit with votes as result of people seeing the RfC. The AfD has been up for ten days and I think there is a pretty clear result so it isn't an issue. Another one I mention was just relisted so there is no real helping that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please un-ceritify

I see two problems with your certification of the The Devil's Advocate's RfC:

1) You specifically created an exemption to his topic ban in order for him to bring this.

2) While the rules only apply to the RfC/U process, it is well within the spirit for such an adversarial RfC to be certified by users who have tried and failed to remedy such issues. As far as I can see from your statement, you haven't done so.

By acting as a second certifier, you're artificially validating both TDA's efforts that led to his topic ban, and your own role as a mediator of that topic ban. I suggest you withdraw your certification, and let a disinterested party--or a partisan who wants to actually support it--do so. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You know what? Nevermind. The train's left the station. Consider this constructive criticism for next time around. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It was nevertheless completely improper. It's maybe about the civility warriors woke up to the real problems here. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My endorsing it or Jclemens comment as completely improper?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your endorsing of it. Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that RFC yesterday and groaned when I saw your sig. No one will ever accuse me of being a friend of ARS, but jeez, it's finally quieted down this week. Can't we shove this eventual bluelink off a few more months? It's not going to resolve anything as long as Special:Undelete and Special:Unblock function. MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hello Balloonman, if the offer is still open, I was wondering if you had time to do a review of my contributions and possibly consider writing up a RfA nomination. I have given it a lot of thought these last two weeks, and if you don't see anything concerning, I would like to try running for adminship in a week or two. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait--you're not one yet? Drop a bureaucrat a line and PayPal them twenty bucks, that's how Balloonman got his. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

shhhhhhh don't forget that was when the economy was doing fine as well.!!!!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, it's not you... but I just don't feel like investing that much time to do an RFA review. Sorry.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Doing an RFA review is very time consuming. I can understand not having enough time to do one. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

AQ, I may scrutinize you a bit--after I'm done grading and have taken care of the fish tank, and if I recover from the stress of watching Dance Moms. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Policy request evaluation

May I as your evaluation of WP:UCN on this article Talk:Nicole_Polizzi#Name_of_article, thank you.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 18:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've contacted another admin on this policy issue, I hope you don't interpretate this action as going over your head as i value your opinion as an administrator but i didn't get a response so i figured that this wasn't your bailiwick as far as the UCN policy and let the request pass. BTW on other issue User talk:DegenFarang is making yet another appeal to left his ban, I know you and user 2005 don't see eye to eye on all issues but what happen to him last year was truly egregious. if it is lifted I hope the whole project doesn't have a repeat of what happen last year! In my opinion I rarely saw DegenFarang make a good faith attempt at contributing to this encyclopedia. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 03:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no problem, I saw the request... took a quick look at it, but didn't have time to respond at the time and forgot about it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for World Series of Poker Africa

The DYK project (nominate) 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Armstrong (priest)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Balloonman, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 03:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Dewey

The DYK project (nominate) 16:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• You may be interested in using this in Ralph Dewey Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Balloonman. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A serious question

What would you have done in that situation? You have a lame edit war, with one party repeatedly reinstating a comment that others have removed as a personal attack (whether it actually is or not). Said party's been asked politely on their talk page to stop reinstating it. What's the next step? 28bytes (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That is where the failure of the previous ArbCOM decision came into play. ArbCOM should have addressed what should happen in future scenarios, but the failure isn't the block. It is the fact that a sitting member of ArbCOM initiated the block. Courcelles should have known that any case involving MF could return to ArbCOM. By his acting in a mannor that he had to have known would create a dhramafest, he has created a scenario which clouds any future actions of ArbCOM on this subject. He is now being hounded and persecuted for making a questionable/dubious block---which is par for the course. Nothing new when it comes to MF. But because he is an Arb, this issue takes on a new light... will this persecution of him prejudice the other members of ArbCOM? Will they rally around their own? Will they judge the case fairly? Will they be intimidated to take other actions? Courcelles should have NEVER been the one to make this block, he should have stayed away from it with a 20' pole. If he felt compelled to speak, he should have issued a warning/statement as an Arb. By action as an Admin in this case, it was a poorly thought out action.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm not convinced there would have been less drama if it had been Joe Q. Admin rather than an arb, but I suppose we'll never know. 28bytes (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there wouldn't have been less dhrama, but it wouldn't have been a member of ArbCOM directly involved with the dhrama. Therein lies the difference. If Joe Q Admin had performed the same block, then it would have been Admin Joe Q Admin getting the grief and calls for his head. But it's not some anonymous Admin, it is a high profile member of ArbCOM who should have known this would be the outcome. If it has been Joe Q Admin, then the integrity {however you construe it} of ArbCOM would not be affected. But it is not Joe Q Admin, it is a member of ArbCOM... and that makes all the difference here. I am not as worried about his actions from the perspective of an Admin as I am from his involvement with ArbCOM. That is what moves this from being a questionable/debatable block, to a bad one. Having just sat on a major Arbitration case involving Malleus and being in the position where ArbCOM might be called upon again to address this case makes all the difference here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly taking the action means he would have to recuse in future ArbCom rulings, and it is more sensible not to act in such situations when a sitting arbitrator, but you can't completely legislate against it. BTW, sorry for pointing it out, but you mis-spelt recuse as recluse three times on Courcelles's talk page. I wouldn't normally point it out, but recluse has another meaning, so it keeps jarring when I read that... Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, I am a miserable speller... I learned how to spell phonetically when I was a kid, which doesn't work when you had a major speech impediment growing up. +

Yeah, he would have to recuse himself in the future... but my criticism is that having just sat on a case involving MF that might very well end back up before ArbCOM, he should have recused himself here as INVOLVED. He should have let another admin act/not act. This is particularly true when he fully knows the history of what happens in cases involving blocks on MF. If it wasn't for his ArbCOM status, I wouldn't care at this point. But either it was a very dumb action or it was a very manipulative one. Either way, a sitting member of ArbCOM should not get involved in cases that they KNOW will create dhrama and might end up back before the committee. His actions undermine all of ArbCOMs future rulings in this regard.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"MF fan club"

Hi Balloonman. I respect and agree with many of the thoughts you've posted around regarding the MF block, but I think it's somewhat counterproductive and unhealthy to use a phrase like "MF fan club". There are certainly a number of editors who rise to defend Malleus when he's in the shit, and I've been among them at times. Am I fan of Malleus' work on Wikipedia? You bet. However, I think "fan club" implies a band of automatons who are going to show up and support Malleus without regard for facts or logic, like Justin Bieber fans who argue with detractors in YouTube comments. It's a bit of an insult to my intelligence. --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended, I'll redact.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy request

Hi Balloonman. I noticed this and think it is a bit of a stretch; I obviously did review the criteria before putting my name down to support. However I am not going to quibble with the determination you have made as I have always found you to be pretty fair-minded in the past. Just as a courtesy though, do you think you could drop a user a note if you struck their !vote in future? Just in case I hadn't seen it, which in this case obviously I did. Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have. But I do stand behind the fact that you are not neutral in this regard:

You unblocked Malleus (the same subject as this block) previously for a similar infraction.

You later acknowledged your COI and then were sanctioned by ArbCOM for a crime you didn't commit. (The reasoning behind the sanction didn't jive with your admition of guilt or what you had done.)

Similar situation. Malleus (the same person you previously were sanctions for unblocking) gets blocked for another questionable/debatable offense.

This time the blocker is a member of the team that sanctioned you. Which is clearly the intent of the neutrality section of Courcelles recall section.

I can't see how you could be construed as being neutral in this regard. Similar incident, similar circumstances, you were sanctioned, sanctioner is now the offending party. To me, it is pretty clear.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I was not trying to quibble with the determination you made; it comes down to one's ability to read the "spirit" of another user's words rather than the letter. According to the letter I was in no way prohibited. If it is your opinion that the "spirit" rules my vote as inadmissible then I accept that. I mainly wanted to make the procedural point about informing users whose words you redact or strike. Thanks for saying you would do this in future. --John (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies... I should have notified you.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologise, and thank you also for the thoughtful contributions you have made to the discussion. --John (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at my last few AfD contributions?

I was reading through today's AfD log and saw that a few relists weren't completed properly. I believe I've repaired them, but didn't have so much experience editing the log manually. Would you double check me? BusterD (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If I don't forget, I'll try to do so this evening...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it's no trouble. An editor was relisting and in some cases the process wasn't complete. I wanted to provide feedback to that editor, but my correcting edits to the April 2 and April 9 log are of a type new to me ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Just wanted to be 100%. BusterD (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong had some time. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

BN

Kinda uncool for you to casually toss that socking allegation out there. I've been talking with him over e-mail and have no reason to believe he's doing that. 28bytes (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Do people believe it is possible? Yes. Do people wonder? Yes. (And I would be very surprised if the person I wasn't responding to doesn't suspect this.) He's already come back at least once with a new name---possibly twice. While I like and respect him, the fact remains that people do not know. Personally, if he came back and spoke to the community and faced the music, it would alleviate a lot of concerns people might have. Instead, he's chosen to duck down and cover tail. Which only means that when he tries to come back again in 3-9 months, it will simply reignite the issues again. Until he is willing to face the music and define what he needs to do to come back in the open, people are going to wonder. He needs to come back, admit his mistakes, agree to learn to avoid his previous pitfalls, apologize for his actions as PS and (whatever role he had) with BM towards members of the community. Get a plan in place so that when he does come back, which was his stated goal, the road will have been paved.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the "duck down and cover tail" bit is fair either... he's blocked! What's he supposed to do? (Well, what he's supposed to do is edit productively on another WMF project, which he is doing, on German Wikipedia.) He's already apologized for fucking up. He's willing to edit in accordance with all our policies. I'm not sure what more people want. 28bytes (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

During the last discussion as PS, he had the option of discussing the issues that were raised. But instead of responding to the queries, he chose not to pursue it. He should have said, "OK, I messed up. 1) I attacked Raul/others behind the anonimity of the PS account. I apologize 2) The BM account was(not) another person. While it was another person it had similar edit characteristics to mine because a) I used it b) I taught the person behind the account c) I poisoned the well d) other. 3) I know there were issues re Copyvio. This is what I'll do to help clean them up and what I'll do to avoid the issue in the future. 4) What does the community need me to do before they will give me another chance?" By leaving when he did and the way he did, he didn't give his opponents a chance to get their ounce of blood or set conditions for his return. I want to see him back. But until he is willing to face the music, I don't see it happening. His enemies will oppose him at every turn and until he "pays"/"owns up" they have ammo.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Even as a blocked user, he can post on his page and get the ball rolling for his eventual return. Hell, when he came back as PS, I faced some potential scrutiny by unblocking him to allow him to address the entirety of the community on AN; but he chose not to accept that option---a courtesy not usually extended to most people who are blocked.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why "his opponents" should be setting the conditions for his return. This is not how we treat any other editor who gets blocked. What do you mean "he chose not to accept that option"? He answered multiple questions on that AN thread. (Answered some really hostile and baiting questions calmly and politely, I might add.) He admitted to and apologized for the close paraphrasing and offered to have all his DYK and FA submissions go through additional vetting. He promised to avoid any more disputes with the FA folks. He offered to have me un-delete all of his Rlevse pages and link them to and from the PumpkinSky account in the interest of full transparency. Seriously, what did he not offer to do or not do that you think he should have? 28bytes (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

eh? He was relatively silent during the discourse. He made a return request on February 14. He then made 4 edits (including fixing a type) to his own page which amounted to just a little over 1000bytes of edits. The discussion was moved to AN where he made 2 edits (including one asking if he could post to AN per his unblock.) And signs off of the night. So basically 4 short edits addressing allegations. While he is "signed off" the wolves come out and raise a number of objections. They bring out a lot of condemnatory evidence. Several editors asked me to revoke his "temporary unblock" because he hasn't responded; they only relent after it is pointed out that his last edit said that he was signing off for the night. When he does come back, he makes two short edits and then withdraws his request. He DID NOT address the allegations raised against him. He did not address the issue of BM's hostility towards those he had conflict with---did he use BM's account? Did he poison BM against certain people? What's going on there? He chose to avoid the issue and withdraw the request rather than attempt to work out a plan. Was there hostility? Yes. But he didn't resolve anything. Part of redemption is admittance. While I would like to believe him when he says that BM was a different user, he needs to explain why some of BM's edits mirror his own and his hostility towards some users. He didn't let his supporters work with him... or attempt to define a path for redemption. Could you imagine the difference if he said "Let me help clean up my mess." And then I'll face whatever sanctions you wish to have. Unfortunately, right now his absence is going to be viewed as voluntary---not a result of his poor behavior. If he was absent for 6 months because "he was blocked for attacks against raul et al and copyvios", then a 6 month absense has meaning. When he leaves on his own, it has a different meaning.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What mess is he supposed to clean up? He explicitly said he's willing to help with the CCI in his unblock request. 28bytes (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Then fight for it in February. "Ok, it's clear that the community won't let me back to full time editing, but before I am re-blocked, let me help clean up my mess. I promise not to endeavor onto pages which I am not already involved, and will limit my edits to cleaning up the mess. In addition, I want to know what other conditions exist on my return?" (Those would have included addressing some of the allegations raised against him.) But by simply pulling up stake and withdrawing the request, he merely delays his return. Some are going to want their pound of flesh---sad but true. And the way he left has people wondering, is he serious about returning in the open or will he create a new account? Again, people are wondering if that might be the case. If he had established conditions on his return, people would have more faith that he's working towards that goal.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, what conditions, specifically? He offered conditions (including a mentorship arrangement, which was a nice good faith offer that blew up in his face) in his unblock request. Don't like those conditions? Fine, tell me what conditions are appropriate and necessary to keep him from doing whatever bad things the block is allegedly preventing him from doing now. 28bytes (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I dunno... but it was clear that the unblock request was gonna fail. That the people who were opposed to his returning first and foremost wanted answers---which he did not provide. Several allegations were raised during that time period that he needed to address/respond to. Take the BM attacks on Raul. Let's assume that BM was in fact a different user as Rlvese claims. Did he use BM's account to make attacks? Did he encourage BM to attack Raul? What was going on there? Let's assume that he did one of those two things, which is better for Rlvese's return? To admit to that in February when issues are still heated? Apologize before taking the next 6 months off, or wait until August and let any revelations be fresh/new? It won't change what happened, but if he had talked about them in February, the community would have moved on by August (or whenever he tries to come back.) Now, whenever he returns, he's going to have to address those allegations anew... and the apology is going to be fresh on people's minds. Issued in February, and those raising might be deemed petty. What about "punishment" for his "crimes?" Those he slighted want blood. They want to parade his sins out before the world. Sad, but true. By doing what he did, he didn't let them. When he tries to come back, they will bring these issues up again---and they will be fresh as they have not been addressed by the accused. Let the community (his opponents) feel as if his absence is a penalty for his poor behavior. Let them know that he is being "punished". Set up the criteria upon which he must behave during this break. Let's say that a 3-6 month block for NPA/COPYVIO/other issues, would have been the result. Do you think his taking 3-6 months off voluntarily will quell the issue? I don't, most people here are not interested in time-served. They want the time to be known to be a punishment... and that's just to get a seat at the table.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The way you write about thirsting for blood and demanding punishment and such seems to come with an odd sense of detachment. You are with me that this type of thinking is wrong, right? I mean, this is no way to treat a person, even if that person screwed up pretty big. 28bytes (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree... but you've been here long enough to know that it's true. That there are powerful elements in this community who blame Rlvese for all sorts of ills and want their pound of flesh. That without offering it, they will never be content.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to know we're on the same page there. :) The only difference is that, I suspect even with offering it, some folks won't be content. At some point I suspect an otherwise neutral admin will look at both the pro-indef and pro-let-him-edit arguments and say "enough, time served" and go let the guy get back to writing. I'm sure some people will howl, but fuck it, we're not in the business of punishment, we're in the business of writing an encyclopedia, and if he can help us do that, we ought to let him. 28bytes (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And the big difference I think I have there, is that if he is going to take time off, why not let others feel like he's serving time? See below, per vanish, if a person disappears to avoid sanctions, then comes back, they come back to the situation they left. Thus, per VANISH, his departure would be deemed avoidance of punishment.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(watching, repeating the repeat) I am another one of "these people" but already used to being told at DYK how (insert strong word ... or read the ever repeated remarks there) our work is. I repeat as well: I had no history with Rlevse (other than receiving DYK approvements and credits). I think PumpkinSky is not a danger to the project from a copyright point of view, and could be unblocked without any mentor, as a whole lot of people would scrutinize every line anyway. Keep it simple. - Having said that, I am not even sure he would WANT to return to this welcoming scene, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) late to the party comment. I agree whole-heatedly with almost everything 28bytes has said both here and there. (BN). It's also likely well known that I have a huge amount of respect for Ballonman. Now, as much as I agree with what Balloonman says above - I think it's wrong, and I think it's wrong to just accept it. I believe efforts should be made to discourage any sort of "we want our pound of flesh". I think it should be called out and made clear that it is NOT acceptable behavior. Just my two cents. — Ched :  ?  23:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And I won't necessarily disagree with you... but it's kind of like the US Presidential election, there are those who want him back and there are those who will throw every impedement they can in his way. The key is to get the middle of the ground Wikipedian. To get that contigent, he needs to show remorse and acknowledge his mistakes. If it looks like he's avoiding full disclosure and potential repurcussions as a result, it won't play in his favor when he does try again. Vanish explicitly states that if a person vanishes that they return to the same state they were in when they vanished. Well, when Rlvese vanished, it was under intense scrutiny. When he comes back, that scrutiny resumes---that is the normal process. Voluntarily disappearing for a year or two does not absolve a person of their transgressions. If he wants to come back, get the clock moving. Face the music/scrutiny, and let what may happen.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I will consider all I've seen and read here, no doubt. Indeed the entire Grace Sherwood incident was a very sad and unfortunate incident. That 8 sentences which were fully cited, but lacked the required paraphrasing would constitute such turmoil is beyond me though. Sure, anything that makes the front page is going garner intense scrutiny, and I can even understand a project embarrassment when something doesn't live up to what we say we are. Yet my impression is that far too many people took it personally. Why? Simply because they didn't "catch the problem" themselves? Is that pretty much what it boils down to? — Ched :  ?  00:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with the intricacies of the case... but yeah, that's my high level impression... that an the fact that similar issues occurred elsewhere... but I don't know for sure as the cases kept getting squelched. I also get the impression that the transgressions were the type that many people make on a regular basis (eg hard to rephrase statements) but because of his prestige and that of hte articles he wrote (EG a lot of FA/GA/DYK) that it accentuated the problem.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As it happens I am all too familiar with the Grace Sherwood case, having been accused by User:Slimvirgin of deliberately attempting to engineer Rlevse's departure by copyediting his article and encouraging him to FAC without my having consulted his sources, thus concealing his copy-and-pasting. There is indeed some flesh owed here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Grace Sherwood discussion became personal quickly - partially by R's comments, partially via others (as Malleus mentions). But to echo Balloonman here - he has to be open about everything, and willing to accept the consequences and work to address all of the issues, both content and conduct-related. Hell, if that happened I might unblock him myself. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing... if he isn't open about everything... and willing to address everything, then "middle America Wikipedia" isn't going to side with him. (Some users will never want him back, while others will regardless---it's the middle group he has to convince). Look at the issue in February. When he first announced his desire to return, I threw my lot in with those who sided with him. Personally, I have nothing but positive memories of him. He was the first person I met on Wikipedia that I considered to be a Wikifriend/mentor. But as the evidence came in, I moved from Support to Neutral waiting for him to respond to the mounting pile of evidence. Instead of responding, he gave up. Which doesn't look good---and this comes from a person who likes/supports Rlevse. If he wants back, he needs to face the music.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 13:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I came to WP for the music. I don't think PumpkinSky wants back to this. He didn't give up in February, he was advised to do so, ask 28bytes. Excuse me correcting a name in your last post, I don't normally do that, but for a name I do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerda is correct; as I said on my talk page last month, you can blame me for recommending he withdraw when it was clear there wasn't going to be a consensus to unblock at that time. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I will ;-) But seriously, I guess we have a fundamental difference on how he should have proceeded. I think your advice to withdraw was wrong. I think, when it became apparent that he wasn't going to get consensus to come back at that point in time, that he should have shifted the discussion. Address the concerns, come clean, and get the community to agree to have a community block for X months, at which time he would be allowed back. I think he left too early in the discussion---and that his early departure signalled that he wasn't ready to face the music... or worse, had decided to pursue his stated desire of returning another way.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Stated desire"? That's news to me, where was this stated? 28bytes (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• re my previous post and the responses: Thank you B-man for the straightforward reply. Shame that the proper approach of addressing the content rather than looking for blame to assign to editors wasn't adopted at that time. I was on sabbatical, so I'm sure there's much I missed, and perhaps even some deleted material I'm not aware of. In regards to the "tell us everything" approach - I prefer to respect privacy, and personally feel he (Rlevse/PS) has paid his "pound of flesh" in his parting acknowledgement of his errors, his apology, and his offers in his unblock request. Shylock may have his due in that "pound of flesh" - but I believe there was a note about "a drop of blood" in that lesson. Humiliation and subservience is a game for children; and I want no part in it. With that, I thank B-man for his indulgence here, and I'll impose no further. — Ched :  ?  14:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

</lurk>Agree wholeheartedly with Gerda, Ched, and 28bytes. Now, before I leave, carefully dodging shifting goalposts as I go, I will remind B-man that PS was barely even rude, if that, in the FA discussion. In fact, I would think he was far more polite than many other participants. His fault, if any, was in not letting people know who he was, which in no way detracted from the validity of his posts, and considering the manner in which he has been treated since, that's pretty small beer. If you use the a-word with respect to what he said, all I have to say is .<unwatchlisting>--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Having had a whole discussion with Gerda about this, I'm fully of the opinion that Rlevse should come back, but there's music to face regarding legitimate questions and concerns related to multiple accounts and copyright/plagiarism issues. Help answer those questions, and I'm sure the community will let him back, but unless/until those questions are answered, parts of the community will not be satisfied to allow that return. Imzadi 1979 → 22:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

One reason he has not yet made another unblock request since he withdrew in February is that he is convinced that people will continue to hound him about past mistakes and not let him simply create and improve articles in peace and quiet. It's hard for me to tell him he's wrong about that when I see such calls that he "face the music" if he wants to contribute. If he's willing to abide by all our policies as well as help out with the open CCI, what benefit do we get by forcing him to rehash the errors he's made in the past? 28bytes (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rlevse was a member of our Arbitration Committee, which is one of the upper echelons of our community. He was also a bureaucrat and administrator, which means he once had the trust and confidence of our community to uphold our policies. One of those policies is the use of multiple accounts. "Facing the music" in this case would be as simple as acknowledging which alternate accounts he has used in accordance with that policy. He should also return to his original Rlevse account and unvanish, abandoning the PumpkinSky account. (It's my understanding that you either get to exercise the Right to Vanish and permanently leave the community, or exercise a Clean Start under a new account, but not both.) I'm not out for blood; I'd like to see an editor acknowledge mistakes and apologize for them. That's all. Imzadi 1979 → 00:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He did apologize in his unblock request. I know we often require editors to apologize two, three or four times before we unblock them, but let's at least acknowledge he's completed the first round of it. 28bytes (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

See also: I'm deeply sorry I've brought these problems to wiki and ArbCom.. — Ched :  ?  00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here 28bytes. Those of lower status than Rlevse (Ottava comes immediately to mind) are treated like piles of shit and lied to by ArbCom, whereas serial plagiarists like Rlevse, an ex-ArbCom member, are almost deified. This house needs to be put in order, and everyone dealt with equally. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

We should indeed treat people equally. We should no more require Rlevse to grovel because he used to be an Arb than we should require anyone else to grovel because they weren't. I can't control how ArbCom treats people, but I can certainly control how I do, and I've got no interest in making people prostrate themselves before the community after they've already apologized for their fuckups and promised to try to make amends. 28bytes (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I could sign up to that, but it's not how things work here. That indef blocks remain in force until the target grovels obviously ought to be completely unacceptable in a civilised society. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, do you think ps's original block appropriate? I believe you were part of a conversation at the time concerning whether he should be blocked. You seemed at the time to support it. in this conversation (if your recall, ps was blocked by Moni3 at 0000 on 2 February)--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is not up to so much finesse, simply and kindly consider a few related threads, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this thread for a few days and noticed there are quite a few things mentioned here that Pumpkin Sky is being asked to do before he is allowed to return:

• speak to the community
• face the music
• admit his mistakes
• agree to learn to avoid his previous pitfalls
• apologize
• pave the road
• give his opponents a chance to get their ounce of blood or set conditions for his return
• "pay"/"own up"
• address the allegations
• willing to accept the consequences
• work to address all of the issues, both content and conduct-related
• explain Barking Moon's hostility
• seek redemption
• face whatever sanctions
• let people take their pound of flesh
• let people parade his sins out before the world
• let people know he is being punished
• needs to show remorse
• seek absolution

Is that really the kind of community we want to be? Is that really the kind of people we want to be? Or maybe we can trim this list down to things that are actually in line with the way civilised people behave, and are actually relevant to building an encyclopedia. Just my opinion. --Dianna (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)