Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer

Daniel C. Boyer article

• [Re: challenging the notion that my article was vanity]: I did not challenge this, precisely. Reading the cited record will show only that I stated that it was debatable whether it was vanity,[1] and how this can be taken as a positive assertion that it is not vanity, period, confuses me. I meant only to say that this wasn't a settled issue and didn't mean for my statement to be taken for any more than this. One of the problems in this RfC is that people keep reading implications into what I'm saying, even going so far as to read implications that are the precise opposite of what I've said, when all I was intending at the time was for the statement to be taken at face value.
• [Re: challenging the notion that the article was about a non-notable subject]: Again, the record[2] will reflect that this is a misrepresentation. Nowhere in here do I claim that Daniel C. Boyer is a notable subject, that I am notable, that I am not non-notable, &c. All I do is question whether the word "aspiring" should be used. I will say now that in my opinion this shouldn't be used to describe anyone in an article (though probably most of the people it would be applied to shouldn't have articles about them, unless they are notable primarily for something other than what they are "aspiring" to be) as it is subjective, and I think inherently POV. I think a better approach could be taken. That being said, if anyone gets out of what I wrote that I'm claiming notability they are assuming something I don't, that if an artist is not "aspiring" he is therefore notable. There are plenty of non-aspiring artists who are non-notable, and it is certainly conceivable I fall within this ambit. It may have been inappropriate for me to discuss this at all, but why I did so was out of a desire for precision that would have been better expressed by my questioning the use of the word "aspiring" in general in biographies in another forum, perhaps the Village pump.
• [Re:French Wikipedia]I truly think this is outside the scope of an RfC on English Wikipedia. Nevertheless, research will show that my providing a partial resume was in response to a request, and I don't see how this is damning in that context, although I've really been catching it for responding to a request for illustrations on the Surrealist techniques article.

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

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)

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. plattopus^talk 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)

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

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)

Daniel, you are talking about your three-minute film,"The Dead Man",correct?Classicjupiter2 19:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Surrealist Subversions

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)

• A link to the "Daniel C. Boyer" article, not an external link. Aside from the PVC article, all of those references are to you including links to your eponymous article. Postdlf 23:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't know that you had contributed an article (rather than images) to the anthology so I didn't realize that "his article" was ambigious (particularly in the context of talking about adding links to the DCB article to other articles). I changed the language to refer precisely to what I meant—"the 'Daniel C. Boyer' article." Postdlf 23:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I have two articles and one image in the anthology. And your response certainly brings up the question of what the purpose of my responses is if you're not going to read them. Let me quote: "I've two articles in the book". How is that ambiguous? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But...you're doing it again. Ignoring the point—you created an article on a nonnotable book you had contributed to for the purpose of adding another vanity reference to yourself—in favor of quibbling about a detail that is irrelevant to that point. Postdlf 23:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The nonnotability of the book is questionable, to say the least, though I imagine you'll think that in so saying you've caught me in flagrante delicto, but if that's the question you're begging in your response, I'll consider it fair game for my rejoinder. How one can consider the largest-ever surrealist anthology "non-notable" is beyond me, and to think that it's only notable because of my contributions is equally puzzling. The supposed "non-notability" of the book derives only from the novel POV (a POV, by the way, rejected by Breton and every other participant in surrealism all the way along) that surrealism ended in [pick a date: 1945? 1966? 1969? 1989?], or perhaps from Classicjupiter2's rigorous and documented attempts to remove as much information as possible about surrealism from Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • More denial. This man refuses any attempt at improvement. I was going to forgive this man's past acts and support his right to edit surrealism articles, unfortunately its all downhill from here after reading his recent responses on here. I recommend that this user be blocked from editing the surrealism articles, and if he keeps it up and ignores the facts presented in the evidence, then I recommend a permanent ban. I tried to work with this man, he refuses all help.Classicjupiter2 19:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Denial of what? What attempts at improvement? Notice you do not have one single scrap of evidence; notice that you do not even attempt to refute my allegations as to your lack of credibility. Also notice that this RfC is not about surrealism. As for your trying to work with me, that's rich. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Daniel, nobody here is, "playing fast and loose with the facts". I consider that statement out of line. Today's record will speak for itself and what I see coming from you today is not good at all! You have proven that you are not rehabilitated in the way you communicate with others on here from reading your posts today. You made no effort (except the removal of the 140 art links on your user page after the fact) to improve upon matters discussed here, the evidence is overwhelming to say the least. "Surrealist Subversions" is a commercial product and that is a fact, whether it is a book or any other kind of media, it is a commercial product that you are a contributor and you used Wikipedia to promote this book.Classicjupiter2 01:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Describing "Surrealist Subversions" as "a commercial product" is an indirect expression of your personal POV on surrealism, which you are more than welcome to allude to some people having in relevant articles (that contemporary surrealism is not surrealism because the groups sell publications just as the original Paris Surrealist Group et al. did), but it has no bearing on the notability of Surrealist Subversions. Classicjupiter2, did you place the book on VfD simply because you dislike contemporary surrealism? Oh, by the way, Postdlf has played fast and loose, and I've exhaustively documented this. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • How can a statement of fact be an expression of POV? Surrealist Subversions is a book, produced for the sole purpose of selling it to the public. How is that not a "commercial product"? plattopus^talk 19:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you misunderstand what I was getting at, though it can certainly be debated that that was the sole purpose for Surrealist Subversions' production (would you concede that many books have been written for more than just this purpose?). The POV I'm complaining of is Classicjupiter2's idea that contemporary surrealism is corrupt and therefore somehow nonexistent because it sells books, &c. My argument would be that this POV (which in my opinion is absurd because surrealist groups have always done that) would be better expressed in relevant articles than just taking for granted that surrealism no longer exists because surrealist groups sell things, and using that as a basis for wholesale deletion of articles when that POV would be controversial, to say the least.
      • While I am prepared to concede that my participation in an article on Surrealist Subversions may have been improper, I am by no means prepared to concede the question-begging assertions that it is non-notable, or that its notability somehow is tied to my trivial contributions. My participation in the article would have occured had I played no part in the anthology, though I apologise if this misled anyone. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• This is not the place to be arguing surrealism. I have no intention to argue or debate surrealism, surrealist groups, nor the aims and principles of surrealism on this RfC with you. That clearly is not the issue here. The issue is your actions and behavior on Wikipedia regarding self-promotion. Your admission of your participation in the, "Surrealist Subversions" article being, "improper" is noted for the record. It should not take an RfC, or the intervention of other users to point this out to you, after all your time on Wikipedia. Your obsession with detail, and being so precise in your responses regarding other users statements on here (and elsewhere), indicates that you should obviously be aware of the details and precise rules and policies of Wikipedia. You are so quick to point out the frivilous and extremely trivial aspects and semantics in other people's statements, in order to divert the unpleasantness of intervention for your own correction. Now, you decide that your participation in the, "Surrealist Subversions" article was improper. What about all the other articles that you participated in here on Wikipedia?Classicjupiter2 20:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • You don't see anything wrong with saying that I am "[obsessed] with detail"? Shouldn't attention to detail be the norm on what is alleged to be an encyclopaedia? Instead, we have seen people de facto defending the use of Google alone as a source, people using heuristics and disclaiming detailed analsysis, and so forth. Editors should be much more rigourous if anyone is going to even pretend to care about the quality and credibility of Wikipedia. I am never going to apologise for the questions and issues I have repeatedly raised about this, even if I may have done them in a forum that was not optimal. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • Dan, when you stated, "Editors should be much more rigourous if anyone is going to even pretend to care about the quality and credibility of Wikipedia." Did you apply this logic to the self-promotion for you, your sister, and all your surrealist friends on here when you created and defended articles for yourself and them? Dan, as you well know, its really labor intensive to prove the notability of many of these people, that should not be the case. Since you, your sister, your surrealist friends are all alive and well in this day and age, it should not be so difficult to prove the notability of all your accomplishments. Its so labor intensive to get to the facts, just to prove the truth that your film , "The Dead Man" was three minutes, yet you defended your film with other Wikipedia users. Dan, myself, plattopus and postdlf are certainly not the first people to have an intervention regarding your use of this service for self-promotion, others are wise to you as you can see in the archives and evidence provided on here. All you are doing is trying to divert attention from the main topic, your use of this service for self-promotion, and you cannot keep on providing such frivilous attempts at retaliation against those who are only trying to help this service by intervening in your actions and behavior. We all tried to discuss the issues with you and you still are in denial, worse, you go and create an RfC against postdlf, which is the ultimate dud.Classicjupiter2 20:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • You have as much as admitted that you don't care about detail, but perhaps you could check your facts before asserting that I created an article for my sister. There has never been an Allison-Boyer article in Wikipedia. (You'll probably find this argument irrelevant, but isn't there ever going to come a time when people find that the assertions on Wikipedia should at least bear some resemblance to fact?) As for the "labor intensive" argument, it's really worthless. What it's essentially saying is that you're too lazy to bother to do the research on a subject (and I'm fully aware that almost everyone who uses this term, "labor-intensive," thinks God forbid they should ever look in a book -- anything beyone Google, and not even all of that, says Postdlf; it's too much). Your level of laziness is, of course, none of my business, but if you're not going to do any research, haven't you given up a right to comment commensurate with your level of unwillingness? It's also true that the lack of available resources on someone may be evidence of his non-notability, and you're more than free to argue this is places where it's appropriate, such as RfD, and you've certainly done so. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
      • You are side-stepping the accusation in the RfC regarding Allison Boyer. You are accused (if you read the RfC) of adding her name to a list of surrealist poets [3] and of adding an article request for her name to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts [4]. This discussion has expanded (by your own comments and respondents to you) to discuss whether articles about your sister are appropriate but that does not take away from your vanity self-promotion and promotion of relatives. Dancing around this by saying you never created a (specific) article about your sister doesn't respond to the RfC complaint. - Tεxτurε 20:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • I agree with Texture on the above. I still endorse this RfC. I made my final decision regarding Boyer while I was reconsidering Boyer's promotion of his sister. Boyer was using Wikipedia to promote his sister.Classicjupiter2 21:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • You are sidestepping the issue I brought up. Whether I was using Wikipedia to promote my sister is a different issue than self-promotion. RfC's shouldn't be about two different issues. And as for you, Texture, shouldn't there be accuracy even here in RfC talk? If there never has been an article on Allison Boyer, why should anyone state or even imply that there has been? Shouldn't it be clear what we're discussing, shouldn't the facts be clear, before we can even discuss them? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
            • To ensure accuracy, I just did a search of the RfC and this talk page for "Allison Boyer" then went back and search all "Allison" to be sure. No one on either page accused or implied that you created an article on your sister. However, as mentioned in the RfC as part of your self-promotion, you did add her name at the two places specified. (If I have missed it, please point it out.) - Tεxτurε 21:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Your second issue (claiming promoting your sister is not part of your self-promotion) has been addressed already and I won't revisit it. - Tεxτurε 21:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
              • Classicjupiter 2 did, right on this very page, right in this very section: "Did you apply this logic to the self-promotion for you, your sister, and all your surrealist friends on here when you created and defended articles for yourself and them?". Missing this when it's right on the very page you posted this claim on is exactly the type of fast-and-loose playing I'm complaining of. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
                • I reviewed that statement before posting. He says you "created and defended" ... "articles for yourself and them". Do you dispute that you created an article for yourself? Do you dispute that you defended an article request for your sister? - Tεxτurε 22:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

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.

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)

Mr. Boyer's user page

Mr. Boyer furthermore lists CD designs and T-shirt designs that he has created with his art on his user page. These are commercial products that are linked to other websites outside of Wikipedia and serve no purpose other than to advertise products bearing Mr. Boyer's name.

I would dispute that the T-shirt is a commercial product; this T-shirt design is not and never has been commerically available (it is a design only and was never printed on a T-shirt). However, in the interests of consensus and in response to the concerns of other users, I am hereby remvoing this material from my user page. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What about the rest of it? plattopus^talk 17:19, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have already explained about the rest of it. But I'll go further and say that if there is any section that is not linked to a Wikipedia article or you feel is insufficiently connected to Wikipedia please feel free to alert me. (For instance, I just noticed the link to aspiratage and am going to remove this; check to see that I've done so.) If you feel that any of the listed media are not notable (as media in general, not just art media) list them on VfD and if they're deleted that certainly is a good argument for removal of the links to works in that medium. I think this is a reasonable approach but if you feel differently please let me know. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I design websites in my spare time, would you expect me to let the Wikiworld know that I use Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, Macromedia FreeHand, Fireworks, Dreamweaver, EditPlus, Notepad, Total Commander and code using HTML, XHTML, CSS, PHP and MySQL? What about a link to all of the websites I've created?

I sure as hell don't think that's appropriate, because it has nothing to do with me "as a Wikipedian". Yes those subjects (mostly) have articles on the Wikipedia, and those websites were created by me, but they have ZERO to do with Wikipedia. As it stands, I have linked to one of my websites from my user page, because it explains that I have expertise when it comes to a particular band, and the article on that band has since become Featured. That is about the kind of connection I believe outward links on user pages should have to the Wikipedia, not just the fact that a Wikipedian created whatever is linked to.

But please, I would like you to explain how each and every one of the works listed on your user page is directly related to a specific article on Wikipedia. plattopus^talk 18:00, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately the linking is a judgment call. (I could complain about your linking to Dream Theater, but I'm not going to.) The connexion (I'd have to have a more precise explanation of what you mean by "direct") is not that I created the works in question; the connexion is that the media in which the works are executed are the subject of Wikipedia articles (other media in which I've created artworks, and believe it or not there are quite a few are not). (The connexion to me as a Wikipedian is that it exposes, possibly, my thinking and any possible biases as relates to these media.) Thus my recent removal of the aspiratage section, and there could possibly, indeed there are almost certainly, links which should not be on the page. If you have any actual examples of further information you'd like to see removed, please tell me, but my overtures towards a resolution of this issue aren't going to go any further in the abstract. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The link to my Dream Theater related website is there because I (as a Wikipedian) have written an article (on Wikipedia) on that subject. There is a direct connection from my Dream Theater website to the Dream Theater article on Wikipedia through me as a Wikipedian. Linking to one of your artworks because the media used in that work has an article on Wikipedia is an extremely flimsy connection (I could link to every item I come into contact with during my daily life, but I don't), and is at best a violation of the spirit of the user page guildelines. But I dispute that they are there because you see a connection between them and articles on Wikipedia. It is my opinion that those artworks are listed there for self-promotional purposes, but of course I could never prove this opinion. It's up to the rest of the Wikipedians to decide whether your user page is in line with guidelines or not. plattopus^talk 18:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not criticising the Dream Theater link; I said as much outright, so I don't know why you begin with a defence of it. Obviously, though, if you are one of the Wikipedians who sees a problem with my user page in respect to the guidelines, what you should do is tell me what specific issues you have with it, just as if there are others, they should tell me what specific issues they have with it. I am absolutely not going to discuss this in the abstract. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I used the DT link to demonstrate what connection I believe is appropriate for outward links. Now, as for specifics... specifically, each artwork listed on your user page goes against the guidelines. I am not talking about a few of the links, I'm talking about all of them. My reasons for believing this have already been outlined earlier in this discussion, and in my talk page, and in Classicjupiter2's talk page, and in your talk page. Do I really need to explain it again? plattopus^talk 18:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, though I think this is the first time you've actually explained it. It's just that I do not believe this, and I've already thoroughly explained my reasons. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you believe they have a legitimate connection to Wikipedia, and I don't. So where does that leave us? Maybe we need an outside opinion... oh yeah, that's right! That's why we're at RfC. Let's just leave it until we get some community input. plattopus^talk 18:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

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 [5], and also accused CJ2 of being anti-surrealist [6] [7] (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 [8] [9]. 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., [10]) 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,[11] even over disputes that most would consider academic. (see, e.g., [12])

[Re:"trivial aspects of a user's comment"]I obviously don't believe them to be trivial, otherwise I wouldn't say anything about them. I believe that what is here called "trivial" are, generally speaking, mistatements of fact or issues regarding research procedure or the operation of Wikipedia with which I have a genuine and material dispute. It is true, however, that at times I have overreacted to what another user wrote.

[Re:"attempting to provoke hostile reactions"]I have never written what I've written for the purpose of attempting to provoke a hostile reaction. I have too often responded too quickly and perhaps too angrily, but it wasn't a calculation designed to elicit a hostile reaction. I do think that others may have been attempting to provoke hostile reactions from me, and that at times I have fallen for it.

Describing as "surprising" my "hostile interpretation" of Postdlf's behaviour is suprising to me, as all I did was take issue with Postdlf's fast-and-loose use of Google, and then his justification of just looking at one little part of the results and then justifying this sloppiness, and assuming my bad faith (describing what I said as "a little disingenuous"). I think that when one is examining any statement about any article on Wikipedia, and particularly when one is examining whether or not an article should be deleted, regardless of what it is, if one is going to use Google as a source, casually examining a page or two of the results and then making a loosely-thought-out, sweeping overgeneralisation about them is not the best way to proceed. This position may be "surprising" (though I hardly know why), but it is still the one I maintain. I still think that thoroughness and precision are the best approaches. I still think that the basis for deletions should be factually accurate assessments, and if these factually accurate assessments lead to the deletion of an article on me, on whatever, so be it. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

See description generally above in addition to specific references below:

1. Deletion discussion of Daniel C. Boyer article.
2. Use of an anonymous IP (compare [13] with [14]) to request undeletion of "Daniel C. Boyer", August 12, 2004.
3. First undeletion discussion of Boyer article, August 12-16, 2004.[15]
4. Use of an anonymous IP (compare [16] with [17]) to add "Daniel C. Boyer" to requested articles after it had been rejected on VfD and VfU, March 11, 2005.
5. Second undeletion discussion of Boyer article, April 21-28, 2004.[18]
6. First RfC listing, April 28, 2005. Mr. Boyer lists Plattopus on RfC for "gross incivility" [19]

How is this even remotely an RfC issue? First of all, the issue is over, as it has been removed from RfC and has been dealt with between Plattopus and myself. Second, I think that what he wrote was "gross incivility" by any definition, and at least it was debatable. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's an issue because you abused RfC protocol, not because of whether or not you believed my actions were "gross incivility" or not. plattopus^talk 17:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise. I jumped the gun on how I dealt with this. I should have made more of an effort, but it was my understanding that this issue was resolved, and I am curious as to why you are bringing it up again. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Second RfC listing, May 2, 2005. Mr. Boyer lists Plattopus on RfC for "false" statements about him.[20]

I have indicated a willingness to let this issue drop; I don't know why we're still doing this. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's too late for that now. If you're this willing to let things slide when people start piling evidence up against you, why did you even pursue the RfC in the first place? plattopus^talk 17:17, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was willing to let it slide before people started "piling up" what you so creatively call "evidence" against me. That said, are you willing to accept my saying that I consider this point worked out, or are you still interested in pushing this? RfC is for issues that haven't been resolved, and unless you want something else, if the removal of your name from RfC didn't resolve it, my saying that we're even on this point did. There's plenty to deal with here without your bringing up what are now non-issues. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Worked out or not, it's still evidence of your behaviour. We have listed all the evidence that supports our claims. plattopus^talk 18:00, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is an abuse of RfC. RfC is supposed to only be about current controversies, not rehashes of historical controversies or non-issues. This issue being presented on RfC is frivolous. It is not "evidence" supporting a claim, it is a specific issue in itself. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be another diversionary tactic on your behalf. I am linking to an instance in which you abused the RfC process which spawned the past two weeks (and counting) of discussion between us. You listed the RfC as a response to my comments on the VfU page regarding your user page, which is another facet of this current RfC on you. This issue is still ongoing, and has uncovered seperate disputes (all of which are echoed by CJ2 and Postdlf, by the way, before you attempt to pull me up on the "RfC must be about the same dispute" section of RfC guidelines). I don't see how you can consider this not to be a part of our conflict over the past few weeks. It is essentially the birthplace of it all. plattopus^talk 18:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that it is a diversionary tactic. In no way is it a current dispute as I do not now maintain you should be listed on RfC. (I reiterate my asking what I could do to resolve this issue in your eyes.) --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

But I do now maintain that it was an abuse of process at the time. Regardless of the fact that it happened two weeks ago, it is hardly a historical (and certainly not resolved) event. Just because you want to distance yourself from your mistakes doesn't mean that it is resolved from both sides. plattopus^talk 18:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Let me take a different tack. What would I have to do, or what would have to happen, for you to consider it resolved? I'm interested in resolving this issue with you. --Daniel C. Boyer00:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue is that you listed me on RfC at all, not your reasons for doing so (those have already been dealt with). There's no way to go back in time and change it, the fact that you abused it will show up in the edit history forever. plattopus^talk 19:54, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The listing of user:Plattopus on the RfC by Daniel C. Boyer was way out of line. That was a completely unnecessary action to take. I believe when Daniel C. Boyer placed user:Plattopus on the RfC, that action by Boyer was a personal attack, that is my observation.Classicjupiter2 22:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

1. Mr. Boyer's user page.
2. Mr. Boyer's illustrations, with full attribution and titles, listed at Surrealist techniques.
3. See generally User talk:Daniel C. Boyer, User talk:Plattopus, and User talk:Classicjupiter2.

RfC is now on more than one issue

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)

• Daniel, Allison Boyer is your sister, correct?Classicjupiter2 19:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Everything relates. Allison Boyer is mentioned mainly to tie the edits of one of the anon IPs to you, by showing first that you had already attempted to add your sister's name to an article, and then that you requested an article on her again through an anon IP. An IP which was either you or someone whose only interest in Wikipedia is apparently to help document your choice of art materials in great detail, repeatedly attempt to restore your article, and contribute to your pet topics, as well as try to get your sister an article. Regardless, I don't think that promotion of family members is so far removed from self-promotion. You obviously are free to argue that it is totally irrelevant, and see if anyone endorses that view. What I have tried to keep out of this RFC is general conflict over the topic of surrealism, because 1) I can't certify to any of that because I've never edited on those areas and 2) while I personally am aware of surrealism just as an early 20th century art/literature movement, I can't say I know enough about it to take a firm stance on the acceptability of your behavior in that area...that will have to be for others to do somewhere else. Postdlf 19:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Your statement that you "don't think that promotion of family members is so far removed from self-promotion" is an admission that there is some distance, and therefore an admission that the RfC is on two subjects. I think you should either create a separate RfC on that issue, or remove this RfC, rather than playing fast and loose with the rules.
  • As for surrealism being "an early 20th century art/literature movement," this is a common misconception, but one the primary sources from the early 20th century repeatedly disclaim. There is far too much for me to get into here, but a simple reading of the Manifesto of Surrealism will show that it doesn't say anything about art, and its primary focus is very far from being on literature.
  • As for my editing on my "pet topics," I don't see how the interests of someone else on a public computer coinciding with mine really show anything, and there is a certain degree of question-begging here, as I'll think you'll recall increasingly desperate attempts to identify as me IPs from Pennsylvania who never did edit on any of my pet topics. There are many wild assumptions at play here and far too few hard facts. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. This RfC has really nothing to do with discussing or debating any issues regarding surrealism. That has no place here and its not the topic of review on this RfC. The actions of Daniel C. Boyer and his behavior on Wikipedia regarding self-promotion and abuse of this service is what is being presented. The evidence that is presented above, in my view, does prove that Daniel C. Boyer was using Wikipedia to promote himself and his sister, Allison Boyer. There is no denying that fact. I would also like to add that promotion of family members is self-promotion in Boyer's case, regarding the articles created by Boyer himself, for him and his sister and friends. It is the entire scope of the articles that Boyer has been involved in that leads me to this conclusion.Classicjupiter2 22:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In bringing up Allison Boyer, you are bringing up a second issue on RfC, which according to the rules is an abuse of RfC. This RfC should either be removed, references to Allison Boyer be removed from it, or another RfC started on this issue. I am now going to attempt to discuss this with you on your talk page. As for "my friends," what about the people you've called my friends I've never met and have had no contact with? I'm still waiting for an answer on that one. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Jerzy's Involvement

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"

0 Overview 1 Removal of DCB's RfC 2 DCB Interrupting Signed Contribs 3 Personal Attack on Jerzy

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)

---

---

I wish to write in support Jerzy's section on DCB Interrupting Signed Contribs. The long history of this causes me to take great caution when discussing with Mr. Boyer and caused me to add the following to my RfC comment:

(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)