Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer

message: 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_C._Boyer&diff=prev&oldid=13474953)).
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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plattopus&diff=12903744&oldid=12902849) 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.
:Though information about my adding information about myself and my work to articles is promised, it is not provided.  As far as "[t]his 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," I am not constrained to apologise for criticsm of factually inaccurate statements, and I am not going to apologise for questioning, e.g, obvious non-hoaxes being described as "hoaxes" when the defence is that the user employs the word "hoax" in an idiosyncratic way.  Describing my focus on one word as "obsessive" is a matter of opinion, and in any case, even if I am being obsessive as regards it (I tend to be precise, perhaps to a fault), it's also a possibility that the user of it could approach what he is saying in another way so as to defuse the situation and try to reach consensus.  And it's not as if others have not engaged in selective attacks and personal insults against me in these discussions, so why am only I being held accountable?  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll be happy to know that Texture has kindly added evidence related to this subject to the Discussion section of the RfC. I'm not sure how evidence of your conduct in this regard escaped citation, but I guess it got lost amongst the piles of other evidence.  plattopustalk 17:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
=====Use of a second anonymous IP to add his article to Wikipedia:Requested articles; parallel collage?=====
Just a note: the notion that the existence of this page was vanity is undercut to some degree by the very template on VfD that is referenced.  Did anyone even notice that parallel collages are included in the catalogue of the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition?  Does anyone honestly believe that I participated in this, at the age of five?  Do people even read anything, or simply make fast-and-loose assumptions -- I've never heard of it personally, though it concerns a subject I don't really know anything about, therefore it is vanity?  This also brings up an important concern about Wikipedia, which is its (in my opinion) over-dependence on Google and the World Wide Web to the exclusion of print sources.  Google and WWW can be important tools, but we shouldn't ignore the very substantial, and almost certainly even broader, source of information that the print world provides.  None of these issues have been dealt with properly here or elsewhere, and my feeling is that will continue, to the detriment of Wikipedia.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-promotion and anonymous attempts to undelete "Daniel C. Boyer" article

message: Just a note: the notion that the existence of this page was vanity is undercut to some degree by the very template on VfD that is referenced.  Did anyone even notice that parallel collages are included in the catalogue of the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition?  Does anyone honestly believe that I participated in this, at the age of five?  Do people even read anything, or simply make fast-and-loose assumptions -- I've never heard of it personally, though it concerns a subject I don't really know anything about, therefore it is vanity?  This also brings up an important concern about Wikipedia, which is its (in my opinion) over-dependence on Google and the World Wide Web to the exclusion of print sources.  Google and WWW can be important tools, but we shouldn't ignore the very substantial, and almost certainly even broader, source of information that the print world provides.  None of these issues have been dealt with properly here or elsewhere, and my feeling is that will continue, to the detriment of Wikipedia.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of a second anonymous IP to add his article to Wikipedia:Requested articles; parallel collage?

message: ======Jim Jarmusch film, Dead Man======
Despite what Daniel Quinlan says, confusion is certainly possible (he has no basis whatsoever for his statement), and that Jim Jarmusch's film came after mine certainly would argue for this disambiguation.  At any rate, the appropriate place to argue about this (which I don't even know why we're doing, as it's since been revised), is on the talk page of the article in question.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Involvement in the "Daniel C. Boyer" article and addition of his name to other articles

message: Despite what Daniel Quinlan says, confusion is certainly possible (he has no basis whatsoever for his statement), and that Jim Jarmusch's film came after mine certainly would argue for this disambiguation.  At any rate, the appropriate place to argue about this (which I don't even know why we're doing, as it's since been revised), is on the talk page of the article in question.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim Jarmusch film, Dead Man

message: I cannot have "included a link to his article as a contributor" as I've two articles in the book (so which one?), and neither article is online.  Perhaps people are aware that there are books some of the content of which is not online?  "Personal attack" though this may be, confusing (euphemism, here, for "crystal clear") it's yet another example of Postdlf playing fast and loose with the facts, or not bothering to research them.  That said, the appropriate place to deal with this was on VfD, and that's how it was dealt with.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Surrealist Subversions''

message: 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.
:The beginning of this issue is so crazy it's difficult to even know where to begin.  To say that "concerns have arisen that this article is being used by him for self-promotional purposes as well" is profoundly mysterious considering that the images were only being provided in response to a request after an unsuccessful search on my part for other appropriate images, and my repeated, repeated assertions that I have no objection (and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to have any) to their replacement with other images.  How am I using the article for self-promotional purposes?  Do you have any behaviour or anything to back this up, or is this simply an accusation in a vacuum?  What "[i]n the context of Mr. Boyer's overall conduct" means is somewhat mysterious.  I would argue that "[a]ny point of reference" is not the standard for the citing of sources; I would argue that in any case, sources should be cited whether the image is a notable application or obscure (and my specific illustrations of these already somewhat obscure techniques are certainly not notable!), and that this is just good research practice.  As for the reader's familiarity with the artist or art, if the reader was familiar with the artist and art, why would you even need to give the cite?  This argument is completely nonsensical.  If people are that allergic to any mention of my name, replace the illustrations with others, but I am going to strongly argue that the author and title of those illustrations should be cited too.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Boyer's art as illustrations on [[surrealist techniques]]

message: In my view at least the material regarding Allison Boyer should be removed from this RfC, if my name shouldn't be removed from RfC, as it is clearly another issue than any issue previously raised.  In my view it has been highly debatable whether multiple issues aren't already being brought up, but this definitely crosses the line.  In the alternative start a separate RfC on me on this matter.  It can't be anything to do with self-promotion as I am obviously not Allison Boyer.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC is now on more than one issue 

message: Overview
My name appears twice in the initial request. (I also was invited to participate in its creation, but i did so only to the extent of one purely mechanical edit for clarity, and not even of text intended for RfC, but only of the instructions related to contributing to the initial request.)
While i share with the filers a distaste for DCB's role here, and a concern that he harms WP, i do not intend to examine this RfC carefully enough to endorse any of its sections. Nevertheless, i am not an innocent bystander, having involved myself as the requesters note (and further, on a user-talk page).
This long contrib by me deserves subdivision, but does not justify the burden that sub-sections would impose on the automatic ToC. This manual ToC may help.
Manual ToC of Section "Jerzy's Involvement"<BR>
 
0 Overview<BR>
1 Removal of DCB's RfC<BR>
2 DCB Interrupting Signed Contribs<BR>
3 Personal Attack on Jerzy<BR>
</tr>
Removal of DCB's RfC
My name first appears in the section Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer#Second undeletion discussion and RfC abuse, which says DCB's RfC 
: was duly removed five hours later by Jerzy, who considered it a "personal attack".
While that wording is, strictly, accurate, it invites the conclusion that i removed the now abandoned RfC effort on grounds of its constituting a personal attack.  The actual situation is that i removed it on grounds (see below) that might have arisen from a mere misunderstanding of the requirements, and might have been immediately remediable.  I consider use of RfC for personal attacks unprincipled but in practice not subject to enforcement, and i do not consider inclusion of PAs (or even lack of any substance other than PAs) to be valid grounds for removing RfC entries.  My reference (in retrospect, perhaps careless) to a PA was an effort to clarify that i was neither being hypertechnical nor suppressing discussion by my removal: i probably would not have considered removal on the grounds i cite below, if the effect had not been a pure PA, which IMO served to discredit and impair RfC without the usual socially redeeming importance of potentially furthering the resolution of a dispute. 
That passage provides a lk to my summary, which reads
: -"*/Plattopus - gratuitous incivility..." which abuses RFC in mak'g what will remain a personal attack until routn atmpt at redress has been made
and meant, at the time i entered it (but throughly verbalized only now that i have more space available)
: I removed the RfC entry that begins "*/Plattopus - gratuitous incivility...", because it abuses the RFC mechanism; it does so by using RfC other than for its intended purpose. RfC entries require previous attempts to resolve a problem by routine methods, but this one was preceded by one angry demand in a public forum poorly suited for seeking redress. Adding this entry was not part of a legitimate RfC process, and served only as a personal attack on the RfC's target, sullying their reputation without meeting the prerequisites for adding someone to the RfC podium's agenda. This removal is "without prejudice", and its creator may have grounds to revive it after complying with the requirements for RfC. 
Actually, tho, that was not exactly why i did the removal: i 
* worded the summary based on taking at face value a complaint of his not having used the target's user-talk page,
* delayed saving while i researched the RfC requirements,
* proceeded with the removal based on my conclusion that two certifications of prior effort at resolution are required at the time of creating the entry,
* but failed to adjust the summary, whose wording was geared to the less objective criterion about the specific location of seeking redress. 
That difference is IMO important bcz the remedy for most inadequate preludes to posting on RfC is not IMO summary removal, but someone (hopefully a more level-headed potential certifier among the two or more, but if necessary, the target of the RfC) saying "this RfC deserves at this time a consensus response that too little effort toward redress preceded it, and that the certifiers (or if necessary, all but one of them) should suspend it while further efforts are made."  IMO the hope of that idea coming forward before filing is the best reason for requiring two certifiers.
IMO i should have made clear that lack of a second certifier was what i considered the solid justification for my removing the entry.
DCB Interrupting Signed Contribs
My name also appears in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer#Vandalism of talk page comments, where my "clear anger" is cited. Not so clear, IMO. I
* was annoyed at the burden involved in preserving both sets of remarks. 
* do think the behavior described is wrong, and not acceptable as a sustained pattern.
(In this regard, full disclosure requires me to finally confess to having done the same, and persisted despite a protest. I was a clue-deficient newcomer, and my victim was even less saavy than i. Antiquarians are welcome to post-mortem Talk:Carbon nanotube.)
I am not aware of whether there is a clear policy (as i think there should be) that, as i usually argue when occasion presents, interruption of a signed contrib must be condemned as forgery.  I haven't seen such a policy cited in this dispute, and i think the filers must be clear whether they are holding that this ugly behavior in DCB's case constitutes 
* an undeniable defiance of policy, 
* part of a pattern of seeking out means of disruption that are not explicitly forbidden, 
* part of a pattern of uncollegiality that disregards every reasonable request, or 
* a disagreement about the best means of citing what's been said by the other side in a discussion.
IMO, a different situation, where the citation of a crystal-clear "interruption of signed contribs is forgery" policy (if the policy exists and was cited here, i am unaware of that), with the same later events ensuing, might (i haven't studied the details) in itself support an RfC.
In constrast, AFAIK both of the points made here that involve me are relevant only to whatever extent that they contribute to a much larger fact picture of abusiveness, and i take no position as to whether that picture is big enough to concern RfC.
Personal Attack on Jerzy
In an edit that closes 
: You owe me an admission of wrongdoing, including either an endorsement of what i replaced your attack with, complete removal of the attack, or your own attack-free restatement.
i struck thru and reworded what i considered a personal attack.  I think that implicit request for redress was and remains justified.  It has evoked no response that i am aware of.  While its face value was meant in good faith, i also made it with the awareness that 
* it was likely to serve better as a combined critique addressed to DCB, and model for him of civility in seeking redress,
* the hope of producing that redress was low,
* whether it did or not, it could be of value as a record, either of his ability to respond appropriately in some circumstances or of another instance where he should have and did not.
Further pursuing that redress is not worth my effort, but some may consider that evidence relevant to the RfC.
--Jerzy~t 22:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (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. ) 
I personally find it rude to do as Mr. Boyer has done (in the past - haven't encountered him recently) in breaking up others' comments.  My intent is to support Jerzy's account here on the talk page since it has caused problems. - Tεxτurε 23:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerzy's Involvement