Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC).

(Daniel C. Boyer | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Mr. Boyer has repeatedly and consistently used Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, while denying any such intention and attacking those who claim it.
Mr. Boyer has repeatedly interjected into every discussion regarding whether an article about him should be on Wikipedia, attacking the reasoning of those arguing against such an inclusion while denying that he is arguing for it.
Mr. Boyer has used anonymous IPs on two documented occasions in an attempt to restore an article about himself that was properly deleted. He has actively denied this despite the fact that both IPs can be traced to his hometown and were used to edit his userpage without reversion by him.
Mr. Boyer's user page is an excessive vehicle for self-promotion and advertising in violation of the user page guidelines.
Mr. Boyer has abused WP:RfC to attack another user who criticized his self-promotional tendencies.
Mr. Boyer has made personal attacks against many users, including Plattopus and Postdlf, and borderline attacks on Classicjupiter2's credibility. Many other comments he has made towards other users in the context of himself as a Wikipedia subject have been unduly hostile and evasive.
Mr. Boyer has persisted in inserting his comments into the middle of those written by other users in discussion threads rather than after, even breaking up sentences in the process, and has ignored repeated requests by numerous users to stop doing this.
Mr. Boyer has shown himself to be completely unable and unwilling to constructively deal with the above legitimate concerns, which have been raised by numerous users in numerous contexts over a long period of time.

Description

Self-promotion and anonymous attempts to undelete "Daniel C. Boyer" article

Overview

Mr. Boyer is an artist who has used Wikipedia as a platform for his own self-promotion. As described in greater detail below, he has added information about himself and his work to numerous articles. There is no absolute policy against this on Wikipedia, though it is generally disfavored because it not only threatens the objectivity of the Wikipedia project, but also serves to negatively color the relationships a Wikipedian has with other users.

In this particular case, Mr. Boyer has persistently entered discussions on regarding whether or not he should have an article while denying that he has any such interest. Even worse, he has done it anonymously and then has disclaimed or ignored evidence of connection to those IPs. Mr. Boyer has also used his user page in a self-advertising manner that goes far beyond policy guidelines. Many users, in many contexts, have come to him with legitimate concerns as to what they perceive to be self-promotional conduct, and have stated that they question his neutrality and wish him to avoid participating in these discussions/efforts. He has universally dismissed these concerns as resulting from "bias" against him or "lies." This is all conducted by Mr. Boyer in a hostile and defensive spirit, often with blatant personal attacks, and often by means of evasion of the issue by obsessive focus on one word or a literal interpretation of a statement that is reasonable in context. Or, he has claimed that people can't read his mind to know why he has done anything, which evades and distracts from the very real and legitimate concerns that were explicitly based on his conduct as the source of any conclusions about his motives.(see, e.g., the second comment added here).

If, as Mr. Boyer claims, he truly does not care whether he is described in a Wikipedia article, he would cease active participation in these discussions and leave the question of his notability up to the general Wikipublic. That he has denied any attempt at self-promotion[1] yet continued to intervene in every discussion that occurs regarding himself as a possible article subject shows a hidden or even dishonest motive that is unbecoming a Wikipedian. It has fostered hostility and disruption in these discussions, as he repeatedly protests his innocence and detachment while aggressively engaging in selective attacks and personal insults. That he has furthermore initiated at least two of these attempts anonymously is simply a shameful attempt to dodge process while evading responsibility.

Involvement in the "Daniel C. Boyer" article and addition of his name to other articles

Background of the present disputes

Mr. Boyer added his name and links that include references to him to numerous articles. He created List of surrealist poets with the names of himself and his sister, Allison Boyer, included.[2]. He created an article on the Jim Jarmusch film, Dead Man, with a reference to his own film, "The Dead Man",[3], for which he had also created an article (since deleted).

He added a company that he helped start and served as "President, CEO and CFO"[4] to List of United States companies.[5] He created Blair House originally as a disambiguation, with the second meaning being that of a poem he had written.[6] He added a reference to The Breakfast Club about a copy of the movie poster that he had made.[7] Mr. Boyer had also created an article on a book entitled "Surrealist Subversions," in which he included a link to the "Daniel C. Boyer" article in the list of contributors. That article has since been deleted as well.[8]

These added references to himself also include artistamp [9], and his editing warring over the inclusion of an external link that referenced his art on polyvinyl chloride [10],[11],[12],[13] an article about a plastic that he happened to use for an art material.

Mr. Boyer also extensively edited an article about himself, and then became very involved in its deletion debate. As the discussion describes, the article appears to have been the source of significant edit wars between Mr. Boyer and other users (this cannot be confirmed independently, however, as there is no undeletion history saved). Throughout the VfD discussion, he aggressively attacked those voting to delete and challenged the notion that his article was vanity[14] or about a nonnotable subject,[15] while nevertheless denying that he was engaging in self-promotion or advocating for an article about himself.[16] Please note that last edit link also includes his claim that the French Wikipedia "broke its own rules" in order to delete its own "Daniel C. Boyer" article. Mr. Boyer was involved in the French deletion discussion as well,[17] going so far as to post a partial resume.[18]

While these earlier edits date back to as long as two or three years ago and so would be improper alone for a current RFC, they provide a context for demonstrating his continuing, persistent pattern, as elaborated below, and a context for understanding why his disregard for the community perception of his actions is so problematic—that perception is based on a long history of Mr. Boyer's self-promotional efforts.

Anonymous listings of his article on November 2, Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion; Mr. Boyer's involvement in the first undeletion discussion

Mr. Boyer subsequently submitted his article for undeletion in August, 2004, through an anonymous IP, 65.174.34.14. Compare that undeletion listing with that IP's other contributions, which include unreverted edits to User:Daniel C. Boyer of rather detailed knowledge of what materials he has used[19]. That IP is also interested in helping him document his exhibitions[20] and compile a list of references to be used by which other Wikipedians can assess his notability.[21] Generally, that IP's edits also otherwise track Mr. Boyer's interests on Wikipedia, such as surrealism and heraldry.[22] The IP resolves to a server in Hancock, Michigan, which is Mr. Boyer's hometown according to his user page.

That IP also made the following edits: Placing Daniel C. Boyer on requested articles:

August 10, 2004.[23]
August 14, 2004.[24]
September 15, 2004.[25]

Adding Daniel C. Boyer to 1971 births:

November 20, 2004[26]

Adding Daniel C. Boyer to November 2 births:

November 20, 2004.[27]
November 23, 2004.[28]

Adding Daniel C. Boyer to List of surrealist poets:

October 16, 2004.[29]

The day after this was removed, an IP in the range documented below added it back in.[30] That IP's only other edit was the creation of Quinine tree, a redirect that is only linked to from two heraldry articles; one link Mr. Boyer added[31], and the other was created by pasting some of that article's text into a separate article.

Placing "Allison Boyer" (Mr. Boyer's sister) on requested articles:

August 4, 2004.[32]

That IP even posted a "Daniel C. Boyer" article on the Maori Wikipedia[33].

At the time of the undeletion discussion, however, Mr. Boyer claimed he was not supporting the listing[34], implying that he had no connection to the IP. Yet he nonetheless argued against some of the reasons put forth for deleting/keeping deleted [35] while claiming that he was not pursuing the article's undeletion.[36]. He rejected concerns voiced by many contributors as to his lack of neutrality.[37]. Template:VfD-Daniel_C_Boyer also contains a reconstruction of the entire undeletion discussion.

When Postdlf attempted to get a response from Mr. Boyer regarding his surreptitious use of the IP,[38] which was suspected at the time of the undeletion request but not discovered until later, Mr. Boyer gave no response.

Use of a second anonymous IP to add his article to Wikipedia:Requested articles; parallel collage

141.219.44.180 added "Daniel C. Boyer" on December 28, 2004.[39]. Every article in its contribution history[40] just happens to be one that Mr. Boyer has extensively edited while signed in under his own username.

See also (if you're an admin) the undeletion history of a now-deleted version of parallel collage; this IP added a redlink to "Daniel C. Boyer", as well as an external link to a website that featured Mr. Boyer's work.[41] Mr. Boyer, under his own username, had previously reverted the removal of the external link. See June 14 2004 edit.[42]

Parallel collage was deleted as vanity, with many of the voters stating they believed it was created just to promote Mr. Boyer, who was, coincidentally, the only person to challenge the voters' reasoning. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Parallel collage. Shortly subsequent to its proper deletion, it was recreated by 141.219.44.182, the IP discussed in the following section (albeit this time without explicit reference to Mr. Boyer). It has since been redeleted as an improper recreation.

Use of a third anonymous IP to add his article to Wikipedia:Requested articles

On March 11, 2005, Mr. Boyer used a third IP, 141.219.44.182, to add his article onto requested articles. Compare the Requested Articles edit with that IP's contribution history, which once again includes numerous unreverted edits to User:Daniel C. Boyer that show a stunning familiarity with his work and an obsessive interest in helping him document it on his userpage.[43] That IP has also otherwise tracked Mr. Boyer's interests in surrealism and heraldry.[44] The IP resolves to a server in Houghton, Michigan, which is about a mile from Hancock, once again the location of the first anonymous IP and Mr. Boyer's hometown.

Postdlf yet again confronted Mr. Boyer with this.[45] Mr. Boyer responded instead by attacking Postdlf for his opposition in the original VfD, and stated that he was consequently ignoring any comments made by Postdlf.[46] He later denied that he had requested his article, dismissing it as "lies" without actually addressing the evidence.[47]

Mr. Boyer's art as illustrations on surrealist techniques

Mr. Boyer has inserted images of his own artwork into the surrealist techniques article. This appears to have been done originally after at least one request from another user. However, based on Mr. Boyer's general conduct, concerns have arisen that this article is being used by him for self-promotional purposes as well. Mr. Boyer states that these are meant only as a demonstration of a technique, yet nevertheless insists on citing the full title of the artworks and listing his own name in the caption.

Wikipedians regularly use images that they have created, particularly photographs, to illustrate the subjects of articles. While it is of course proper (and expected) for authorship to be included on the image description page, it is inappropriate to include this attribution in the caption of a mere illustration of a technique, particularly given the broader context of Mr. Boyer's overall conduct. Identifying these images cannot serve as any point of reference for Wikipedia readers because they are not notable applications of a technique (for example, the Sistine Chapel appearing next to a paragraph on fresco), and so cannot give a historical point of reference based on the reader's familiarity with the artist or art.

Once again, this is a matter that Mr. Boyer cannot approach objectively, divorced from his personal interest in self-promotion. When Postdlf removed the captions,[48], Mr. Boyer reverted the removals without an edit summary and labeled the change "vandalism."[49] (second comment) He claims he has been "singled out for unfair treatment" because no attempt has been made to remove the caption information of works by Richard Genovese. That artist, however, has his own article which has survived VfD, and so can be assumed to provide a real point of reference to readers in a way that Mr. Boyer cannot.

Second undeletion discussion and RfC abuse

On April 21, 2005, an anonymous IP (this time, one that has not been tied to Mr. Boyer) again listed his article for undeletion. Given the source of the prior undeletion listing, Postdlf concluded that it was Mr. Boyer once more, but another user subsequently claimed credit. Nevertheless, Mr. Boyer yet again interjected in that discussion to argue with users voting to keep deleted, while claiming that he was not advocating for his article's undeletion. (See full discussion). Consider also how neutral this comment of Mr. Boyer's is in light of how soon it was made after the undeletion discussion.

In that context, Plattopus asserted that Mr. Boyer was not notable enough for an article, and said that he "performs auto-fellatio with enough vigour on [his] user page" to make a main namespace article unnecessary.[50]

However offensively phrased that comment was (Plattopus later apologized for the wording [51]), Mr. Boyer's subsequent attempt to turn it into the sole basis of a Wikipedia:Requests for comment proceeding against Plattopus was completely frivolous.[52] He posted it without first discussing the matter on Plattopus's talk page—a requirement, according to RfC guidelines. SPUI said in the VfU discussion "talk about frivolous rfc!", and it was duly removed five hours later by Jerzy, who considered it a "personal attack" [53]. This is an abuse of RfC policy simply used to prove a point.

Mr. Boyer tried to list a second RFC against Plattopus, this time for making "statements about Daniel C. Boyer he admitted were factually false".[54] The "false" statements can be seen on User talk:Plattopus. While attempting to explain why Mr. Boyer's user page inspired his "auto-fellatio" characterization on the VfU, Plattopus stated that Mr. Boyer's user page "documents practically every material you have ever used, every work you have created, every magazine you have been featured in..." Mr. Boyer asserted that the user page "only mentions a small minority of each" and demanded a retraction. Plattopus refused, considering it irrelevant as to whether Mr. Boyer's user page indicated self-promotion on his part. This was the extent of the "factual" dispute, and like so many of Mr. Boyer's disputes, resulted from his insistance on literal interpretation of someone's (at most) hyperbolic statement in order to evade his lack of response to the actual substance of the comment.

See this later comment by Mr. Boyer as conclusive proof that the second RfC pertained to nothing more than what was described above.

Mr. Boyer's user page

CJ2 counted approximately 140 artworks listed on DCB's user page [55], with only around 20 or so having anything to do with articles on Wikipedia (which, in themselves, are of questionable value), and there is also a list of many materials he has used. These go far outside the spirit of the user page guidelines (after all, do we allow everyone to list each item they use at work during the day?). As these guidelines state, one's user page should be about them "as a Wikipedian", and not as an artist who happens to use Wikipedia.

Mr. Boyer furthermore listed CD designs and T-shirt designs that he has created with his art on his user page (these were removed by him only subsequent to the posting of this RFC[56]). These are links for commercial products on external websites that served no purpose other than to advertise products bearing Mr. Boyer's name.

More than one user has suggested to him that his page is at a minimum violative of the spirit of user page guidelines.[57], [58], [59] Other than his removal of the commercial links during the pendency of this RFC, Mr. Boyer has made no attempt to comply with community concerns let alone to sufficiently address them.

Personal attacks and disruptive interactions with other users

Many other tendencies of Mr. Boyer's have made him extremely difficult to deal with. As can be seen throughout the deletion, undeletion, and talk pages cited here, his discussion techniques are frequently diversionary and evasive, and he tends to fixate on trivial aspects of a user's comment and divert attention to that rather than addressing the legitimate concern or argument that has been raised.

Many of Mr. Boyer's comments to others have been outright hostile. Other comments are clearly baiting—attempting to provoke hostile reactions from others so he can feel vindicated in his claims that those who disagree with him are simply biased against him.

He accused Plattopus of being "totally illiterate" on CJ2's user talk page [60], and also accused CJ2 of being anti-surrealist [61] [62] (lower edit), despite CJ2 going out of his way to explain to DCB that he has no problem with his art or surrealism in general [63] [64]. He has also continued to level a variety of inaccurate and irrelevant personal attacks at Postdlf, particularly that he is a "lazy" or "shoddy" researcher,(see, e.g., [65]) an attack apparently deriving from a skewed interpretation of Postdlf's arguments from the original VfD about why Mr. Boyer was not notable enough to deserve an article. See also this subsequent discussion on this issue which makes it all the more surprising that Mr. Boyer would still bear such a hostile interpretation of Postdlf's comments in that VfD.

What makes all of this worse is that Mr. Boyer is very quick to express offense towards any comment he believes is insulting towards him, as both RfC attempts illustrate. He is particularly very quick to accuse other users of lying,[66] even over disputes that most would consider academic. (see, e.g., [67])

Vandalism of talk page comments

Mr. Boyer has repeatedly broken up comments posted by other users in thread discussions by inserting his own responses in their midst, even to the point of breaking up individual sentences others had written. This conduct has continued until at least as recently as April 28, 2005.[68] See Template:VfD-Daniel C Boyer (from April, 2004) for earlier extensive examples of this, particularly his breaking up of comments in which Postdlf had just said he believed this to be a rude practice.[69] See also [70], and [71], and compare Jerzy's obvious displeasure at this with the disregard shown by Mr. Boyer's immediate repetition of the same conduct.[72]

This practice not only makes it difficult to tell who wrote what originally, but it makes subsequent readers only able to see the original poster's comments in the context of Mr. Boyer's criticism of them. More importantly, he has been repeatedly asked not to do this, but has reacted with hostility and scorn to the idea that this is a reasonable request,[73], and yet again ignored the thrust of what was communicated to focus on the usage of a single word.[74]

Evidence of disputed behavior

See inline citations above in addition to specific references below, and see above for contribution comparisons of the anonymous IPs that establish their usage by Mr. Boyer:

Addition of his name and references to his work to numerous articles.[75],[76],[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84]
Involvement in deletion discussion of Daniel C. Boyer article.
Use of an anonymous IP (compare [85] with [86]) to request undeletion of "Daniel C. Boyer", August 12, 2004.
Use of an anonymous IP to add "Daniel C. Boyer" to Requested articles.[87], [88], [89],[90] [91].
Use of an anonymous IP to add "Daniel C. Boyer" to 1971 [92] and November 2 births.[93],[94]
Use of an anonymous IP to add "Daniel C. Boyer" to List of surrealist poets.[95],[96]
First undeletion discussion of Boyer article, August 12-16, 2004.[97]
Second undeletion discussion of Boyer article, April 21-28, 2004.[98]
First RfC listing, April 28, 2005. Mr. Boyer lists Plattopus on RfC for "gross incivility" [99]
Second RfC listing, May 2, 2005. Mr. Boyer lists Plattopus on RfC for "false" statements about him.[100]
Mr. Boyer's user page (compare current version with his user page at the time of the original dispute [101] - he has since removed parts of it).
Mr. Boyer's illustrations, with full attribution and titles, listed at Surrealist techniques.
See generally User talk:Daniel C. Boyer, User talk:Plattopus, and User talk:Classicjupiter2.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Guidelines in WP:RfC
WP:NPOV
Wikipedia:Civility
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Wikipedia:Assume good faith (semi-policy)
Wikipedia:Sock puppet (semi-policy)
Wikipedia:Vanity page (semi-policy)
Wikipedia:Autobiography (semi-policy; adopted, incidentally, due to the "Daniel C. Boyer" article; see its talk page)
Wikipedia:User page guidelines
Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

This can be seen at User talk:Plattopus, User talk:Classicjupiter2, and User talk:Daniel C. Boyer, as well as all the deletion and undeletion discussions listed above.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Classicjupiter2 20:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf 03:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
plattopus^talk 05:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Improv 19:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Tεx τ urε 17:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC) (unless it is more appropriately added to the previous section)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Mr. Boyer has repeatedly and consistently used Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion, while denying any such intention and attacking those who claim it.
- This is essentially mind-reading and in violation of the "assume good faith" policy. Furthermore, many accusations have been made of my using the Wikipedia for "self-promotion" when I have simply contributed articles with which my connexion was marginal (a technique I'd used once, with no mention of me in the article) or nonexistent by any reasonable stretch (individuals or a group I'd never met or had any contact with). Whatever truth there may be to this accusation has been stretched so far beyond any reasonable interpretation that it is all but meaningless. My explanations to the contrary, moreoever, have been repeatedly and consistently ignored.
- When the subject gets into Allison Boyer, however, clearly more than one issue is being brought up in this RfC. This is in violation of the RfC procedure. I would argue that one of a number of remedies should be employed:
  1. Remove my name from RfC.
  2. Add a new RfC under my name for the Allison Boyer issue.
  3. Remove discussion of Allison Boyer from this RfC.
Mr. Boyer has repeatedly interjected into every discussion regarding whether an article about him should be on Wikipedia, attacking the reasoning of those arguing against such an inclusion while denying that he is arguing for it.
- I have never, in these discussions, argued that there should be an article about me in Wikipedia; that would be inappropriate. Where I've attacked the reasoning, it's because such reasoning was holding up unfairness, sloppy research, &c. I denied that I was arguing for it (the inclusion) because I wasn't arguing for it. Let me state again that I take no position on the undeletion or deletion, the retention, recreation, restoration, or whatever you will, or any Daniel C. Boyer article, as it would obviously not be proper for me to do so.
Mr. Boyer has used anonymous IPs on two documented occasions in an attempt to restore an article about himself that was properly deleted. He has actively denied this despite the fact that both IPs can be traced to his hometown and were used to edit his userpage without reversion by him.
- This is not correct (not that the article about me was properly deleted; that's debatable, and at any rate it would not be proper to take a position on it; I should point out, however, that another issue has postdated the deletion, which is my inclusion in Who's Who in America. I leave it to others to determine the significance of this issue, but it does colour this assertion to some degree). If I am correct, these IPs are for public computers at a large university. Other people have contributed to my user page without my reverting it, and it would certainly not be unusual for people in my hometown to take more of an interest in me, positive or negative, than the world at large.
Mr. Boyer has abused WP:RfC to attack another user who criticized his self-promotional tendencies.
- I did nothing of the kind. I do not dispute Plattopus' characterisation of my self-promotional tendencies, as that is a question merely of his opinion, and you can't argue with that. All I ever criticized was his assertion that "virtually all" my artwork, &c. was listed on my user page when in fact only a miniscule percentage of it is. I did not abuse RfC; I listed him under Candidates for RfC after attempting to resolve the issue on his talk page to no effect. As I've now indicated I'm willing to drop it and don't wish to take issue with him on this point any more, I'm at a loss to consider why it's on RfC. As far as I'm concerned the matter is resolved. If he'd like me to do something more such as apologise, I'm willing to consider it.
Mr. Boyer has made personal attacks against many users, including Plattopus and Postdlf, and borderline attacks on Classicjupiter2's credibility. Many other comments he has made towards other users in the context of himself as a Wikipedia subject have been unduly hostile and evasive.
- Perhaps I've gone too far in what I've said against Plattopus and Postdlf. I would like to point out, however, that Postdlf is also guilty of a personal attack against me almost exactly paralleling what I'm guessing is being described as mine on him. As for Classicjupiter2's credibility, he doesn't have any. He and his sock-puppets' main activity has been the attempted deletion of any surrealist-related page he (they) can find. His activities about this have been complained of by users other than myself.[102][103] He even called Classicjupiter2 is his "surrealism deletion account.[104] Many questions have been raised (other than by me) about his identity and use of sock-puppets.[105][106][107] He has responded to any challenge by clearing his talk page so as to make it difficult to debate any issue. As for being anti-surrealist, he laughed about the death of the surrealist Philip Lamantia and when I complained about that said that what it did matter between friends?
Mr. Boyer has persisted in inserting his comments into the middle of those written by other users in discussion threads rather than after, even breaking up sentences in the process, and has ignored repeated requests by numerous users to stop doing this.
- How long has it been since I've done this? In any case, I am baffled as to why people can't understand the self-evident organisation of the indentations.
Mr. Boyer has shown himself to be completely unable and unwilling to constructively deal with the above legitimate concerns, which have been raised by numerous users in numerous contexts over a long period of time.
- As this is a general statement, I find it difficult to go beyond this statement: my view is that my record has probably been more mixed than this reflects, with my having dealt with some concerns not as constructively as I could, and my having dealt constructively with others.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--Daniel C. Boyer 16:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(re: Mr. Boyer's explanation of the RFC listing) I dispute this defense. The post date of his listing me on RfC is before he comes to my talk page (compare [108] to [109], which occurs 5 hours later and is the first instance of Mr. Boyer posting to my talk page). He did eventually make it to my talk page, but it was after he posted the frivolous RfC (in fact it was after Jerzy removed it). plattopus^talk 17:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

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

I am not familiar enough with process in RfC but I would like to refuse some of Mr. Boyer's claims with factual interactions with him. I'll start with his claim not to have created, recreated, or favored restoring an article about himself. This was discussed on VfD and is below:

The article was not added by its subject. It was added by Tim Starling, as has been extensively documented. See, for example: Talk:Daniel_C._Boyer/Auto-biography. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:24, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article was reintroduced as an article by its subject. - Tεxτurε 18:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Give me a cite...? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

09:54, 8 Apr 2004 (hist) User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp (moved to "Daniel_C._Boyer") (New) - This was done to recreate the article outside of your own userspace when you failed to gain a concensus to undelete the redirect - This can be found in your user contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Daniel_C._Boyer) - Tεxτurε 18:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The above was one of many proofs showing his many efforts to restore an article about himself. On April 8th, Mr. Boyer tried to have a temp article about himself moved to replace the deleted article. He did this action himself without direction from another user. During VfD discussion this was not refuted. - Tεxτurε 17:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I respectfully request that Mr. Boyer not alter the above comments to prevent splitting the quotes or removing them from the comments directly applied to the quotes. Copy, but do not alter, edit, insert, or interrupt the above comment cluster. If you have questions about this request please contact me prior to any edits in my comments. )
- Could you please give me a more precise cite about this? User:Daniel C. Boyer/temp has now been deleted. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - What cite do you need? The VfD vote that was caused by your move? Or where the above discussion between you and I occurred? - Tεxτurε 18:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - "The VfD vote that was caused by your move" is question-begging on the level of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" So you haven't provided me with a question I am able to answer without be forced into self-incrimination. I really don't think this is a civil response to a polite question. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - What an odd reaction. "The VfD vote that was caused by your move" is only an extention of my quote. It isn't rude to be consistent in my facts. I showed above an entry in your contributions (before the article was deleted) and when you asked for a cite (and since that itself was a cite) then I assumed you were looking for the VfD vote I referenced or the discussion itself. Asking this does not seem rude or odd. However, let me be proper and ask you to repeat your request in more detail so that I can reply. - Tεx τ urε 18:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        O.K. What I was trying to get at was that I dispute that my "move... caused" the VfD; it wasn't an action of law or some sort of natural process, and I didn't list Daniel C. Boyer on VfD myself. I'm not prepared to make any concession in this regard. I think the best solution to this is a history-only undeletion of the /temp article so we can examine this question, or otherwise to let this particular issue drop. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought this might be your approach. (This is my belief regarding your request:) You are relying on the fact that a move from a deleted article no longer appears on your contributions even though you did not dispute it while the article existed. (I will assume your automatic dispute of this.) I am not technical enough to find the article that was discussed during the VfD. The only deleted history I can find starts in September of 2004. (Obviously, the article existed on April 8th at the time of the VfD vote.) Is there anyone (Developer?) following this that can help out or is the information lost due to too many redirects or too long since deletion? (I am often irritated that deleted articles are not retained in contribution history - usually in cases differing from this where vandals have a history that we can't research.) - Tεx τ urε 18:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not automatically disputing it; please don't assume bad faith. I'm not "relying" on anything; I'm just thinking it would be easier to discuss if we actually had the material in question. I share your irritation about the contribution history. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I regret my assumption. Thank you. Perhaps in a future release of the software they will correct this aberration. - Tεx τ urε 19:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Re: Or where the above discussion between you and me occurred?) Maybe I'm being dense but I'm not sure what you mean. Would you please explain yourself? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - See above - Tεx τ urε 18:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find Dan's insistence upon having a cite provided to him to be in bad faith. Dan knows full well the history of his article, and there is no shortage of others who were here to witness its creation, editing, moving, deletion, and so forth. Whether or not Dan recreated/moved back/expanded/etc the article on any one particular occasion in its long and storied history is immaterial to the greater point, which is that he has been remarkably consistent both in endeavoring to have an article about him and endeavoring to contribute content for it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I find UninvitedCompany's pretending to believe that I can recall verbatim an extremely long edit history to be in bad faith, and if he doesn't believe it's material, why does he bring it up? Moreover, in saying that I am endeavouring to have an article about myself he is flat-out lying. He will be unable to point out any place in Wikipedia in which I have ever advocated this, and he has no reason of any kind to make this unfounded allegation which flies in the teeth of proven facts. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has it ever occurred to you to perhaps try a different approach? Not "you're a lying liar shooting lies out of your lying lie-hole", but "I disagree, but help me understand what I may have done to cause that perception"? Postdlf 01:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may have a point here. I was just frustrated that UninvitedCompany, when all I was actually trying to do was get a detailed record of the move so I would be able to explain myself (and it was possible that, after examining it, I'd see where I'd been in the wrong and apologise), assumed that my request was for some ulterior motive. I assure him it wasn't. If it helps, I will say, "I disagree, but help me understand what I may have done to cause that perception". --Daniel C. Boyer 14:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dan, did you look for the detailed record yourself? If you're genuinely interested in getting along better at Wikipedia, one of the best places to start would be to do that sort of homework yourself rather than writing "Give me a cite?" - which to most readers is a challenge to the veracity of what they've posted rather than an attempt to "get a detailed record of the move so [you] would be able to explain" what you had done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I looked for the record, and failed. That's why I asked. When you're saying "to most readers [it's] a challenge to the veracity of what they've posted" you're highlighting one of the problems I've been having with them, which is behind a lot of what is currently on RfC. Many times I've written something, meaning only for it to be taken at face value -- e.g. "give me a cite" so that I could discuss it in detail without having to rely on now-ancient memories. I in no way intended for it to be taken as a challenge to the veracity of your claim. You then seemed (correct me if I'm wrong) to take it as such a challenge, even though I intended nothing of the kind. There have been many other circumstances in which I've been misinterpreted in this way, having implications read into what I've written where I didn't intend any inferences to be drawn. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maori Wikipedia

"Foreign" Wikipedias are outside the scope of an RfC on English Wikipedia. This is inappropriate and at least verges on an abuse of RfC. The place to discuss these issues is in the relevant Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of the guidelines express that the Maori Wikipedia is "outside the scope" of RfC? I believe an example of your conduct, regardless of where in the Wikipedia it occurs, is relevant to this discussion. This RfC seems to illustrate that perfectly. And please, stop threatening counter-RfCs... it just weakens your case.

plattopus^talk 19:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Which section of the guidelines expresses that someone subjected to RfC abuse is denied the recourse of an RfC? Oh, wait a minute... isn't that exactly what you're claiming? Isn't that exactly what you did? Started this RfC as a counter-RfC because you claimed that my RfC on your was "frivolous," continuing to reject any pacific overtures on my part? And now -- the irony -- you'd deny the recourse to me! --Daniel C. Boyer 20:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, this RfC isn't a "counter-RfC". Your abuse of RfC is one in a long string of issues I and other Wikipedians have with you. Surely you understand that. And I never said you shouldn't be allowed to list an RfC on me or anyone else... I'm saying that constant threats of doing so serve no purpose. Either list a new RfC or don't. If you had any reason for a legitimate RfC though, you'd have listed it by now, so I think you have identified that you actually have nothing to list anyone on RfC for. But again, you have completely disregarded the primary content of my comment... "Which section of the guidelines express that the Maori Wikipedia is "outside the scope" of RfC?"

plattopus^talk 20:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Your abuse of RfC in adding Allison Boyer to it has been made the subject of RfC. I did list it. And another note: these continual allegations that I've disregarded the primary content of comments are a convenient way of ducking the issues that I do raise, which you've proven quite adept at doing. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]