User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 4

Discussion over who created the article.

It seems many consider Daniel was the main creator of all Daniel C. Boyer related articles, and Tim Starling may have been the primary creator of the main article, by consolidating Daniel dispersed articles in a big central one. Daniel participated to the article on him as well. Many editors seem to consider Daniel was the real creator.

Mbecker indicates that accepting the article would create a precedent and defacto lead others to create vanity article as well.

Kosebamse is opposed to vanity pages.

See Wikipedia Talk:Auto-biography

Opening the floodgates

A note on GWO's suggestion above: I think that if this article is not deleted, it should definitely be mentioned (since it is about him) that there was a huge controversy on wikipedia about whether or not he should be allowed to create an article about himself. Then mention that this provides precedent for others to do the same. (Open up the flood gates ;) MB 15:46, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Boyer didn't create this article. As Tim has told you already. Check out this edit by Tim, in which he stubs it.

Boyer has edited it, and has created other related articles, and has added links to it. But Tim Starling created this article.

Got it? :) Martin 18:16, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say THIS article, I said AN article. This article was essentially created by him, b/c it was a consolidation of many other articles he created about himself. So by AN article, I meant any and all articles he started about himself. Is that clear enough? MB 18:34, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

Much clearer.

Mind you, the current version is as much the work of Kat as anyone... Martin

---

Deletion

In light of the ongoing and fragmented discussion, how shall we best make a decision on whether or not to delete the page? Kat 19:56, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I suggest we postpone the decision and focus on finding a general policy about pages like this one. Once that's achieved, we'll have a guideline for Boyer's page. I seem to recall there was some initial discussion on a page of its own yesterday, but I don't remember the name. My vote for such a policy is clear: eradicate the vanity pages (see my comments on what is now Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 3). Kosebamse 20:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Wikipedia Talk:Auto-biography. Somewhere there must be a conversation about the 1000 person test and other article appropriateness tests, though I know not where. Kat 20:44, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

That's the page I was thinking of. I'll add my thoughts there. Kosebamse 21:38, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The autobiographical roots of the article, and the related articles, is only part of the trouble. In fact, I think there is a fairly wide consensus that an accurate, relevant, NPOV, well-referenced article about Boyer would be welcomed, or at least tolerated--despite Boyer's involvement with the article. It is for this reason that I made my earlier edits to the article. It is becoming clear that arriving at an accurate, relevant, NPOV, well-referenced article is going to be difficult, at best; maintaining such an article may prove equally difficult. In that light, perhaps the decision need not be postponed until the Wikipedia Talk:Auto-biography matter is resolved. Kat 04:03, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Daniel Quinlan: Earlier in this discussion, Martin stated that "Boyer didn't create this article". On Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 2, Tim Starling stated:

I think it went something like this: In Feb 2002, 141.219.44.92 created Daniel C. Boyer as a one sentence stub. In March 2002, it was moved to User:Daniel C. Boyer by user:Stephen Gilbert, by cutting, pasting and manually redirecting. Daniel expanded the user page. In April 2003, I replaced the redirect with a 5 sentence stub. Daniel then greatly expanded it, and started his campaign of increasing his visibility in Wikipedia by whatever means possible.

141.219.44.92 is a machine named patpc4.lib.mtu.edu located at Michigan Technological University in Michigan, US; User:Daniel C. Boyer has been edited by these class C subnets (this only shows the times when editing was done by someone not logged in):

count	subnet	current block owner
14	141.219.44.x	Michigan Technological University, Michigan, US
11	24.213.34.x	Charter Communications, Michigan, US
6	65.174.34.x	Copper Country Interm School, Michigan, US
4	141.219.41.x	Michigan Technological University, Michigan, US
2	24.236.179.x	Charter Communications, Michigan, US
1	193.253.200.x	Wanadoo Interactive, France

That another article was created over a year ago and swiftly replaced with a redirect doesn't change the fact that this article was created by Tim, April 2003, with his five sentence stub. Subsequently edited by a bunch of people - to the extent that I doubt you'll find a single sentence here which is wholly Boyer's work. Martin 12:34, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

STOP!

Look, all of this continued arguing is pointless. The fact is, a few months ago, Daniel created a bunch of articles about himself. Then, Tim consolidated them all into one article about Daniel. I don't know his motivation for simply not deleting them. Maybe he didn't realize they were created by Daniel? Maybe he was giving him the benefit of the doubt? I don't know. However, the fact remains that this all started because Daniel created articles about himself. It is really irrelevant who created THIS article, because it all started with the articles Daniel created. Is that clear? So, if someone says "This article was created by Daniel himself" it is essentially true, because this article would not exist if he hadn't created the original articles which were moved here. OK?! Now, lets move onto the problem at hand. I think everyone involved here (that is still paying any attention), should head on over to Wikipedia:Auto-biography, and throw in their two cents on the talk page. MB 14:22, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

No, you're still wrong. Tim created a five sentence stub on Boyer. I consolidated all the articles into one article. We're different people. :) Martin 15:27, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is not the point. Was the first article created concerning Daniel the article Tim made? I believe that the first articles about Daniel were the articles about his work, which he created so that he would have something to link to on the text on his user page. If you look at his user page, and the history, and the history of the articles he created in that time period, you will see that that is exactly what he was doing. When he originally created the article, they should have been delete (which they eventually were, after way too much argument). This article should have never been created. If Tim can tell me that he created this article, without any knowledge of the other articles Daniel was creating, then I will concede. However, I seriously doubt this is the case. And if this article was created b/c of the other articles, then it should definitely be deleted.

This article and all other articles about his works were created by Daniel C. Boyer himself. Article moves/merges/restorations all came later. The logs provide ample evidence of this. Daniel Quinlan 01:10, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree.

I consider that in no meaningful way did Boyer create this article, based on the same logs and talk page archives that you are looking at. Specifically, I view Tim's replacement of a redirect with a five sentence stub, after discussing the matter on the village pump, as the point at which the very first version of this article was created. 05:04, 29 Apr 2003 . . Tim Starling (stub).

You disagree, presumably viewing M 15:51, 25 Feb 2002 . . 141.219.44.92 as the point of creation, despite its subsequent replacement with a redirect an hour later. M 17:07, 23 Mar 2002 . . Stephen Gilbert.

No doubt you find my position as illogical as I find yours. We will have to agree to disagree. Martin 01:29, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

However, I still insist that even if someone else created the article completely independently, it still is not something meant for wikipedia. Especially in light of all the freaking evidence that so many users have wasted their time finding which proves that he is not famous on any scale, and that he doesn't deserve and article. Not to mention, that according to the official vote on the top of the page, the delete's are winning with 9 voting delete, 5 alright with keeping it in some form, and 5 who aren't really sure. So with all these reasons for deletion, why the hell are we still arguing about this?! MB 20:58, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

We're still arguing because we disagree on this subject, you are attempting to convince me, and the methods you are using to convince me are not being successful.

You could try calming down, taking a breath, and waiting to see what I have to say. I rather get the feeling, at the moment, that you're attempting to shout me down, rather than genuinely caring about what I have to say. Martin 22:30, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would not have created my 5 sentence stub if Daniel had not written a few articles about his works. However, that is not a very good reason for deletion. Importance or lack thereof is the only issue worth discussing. The fact that Daniel created Daniel C. Boyer in Feb 2002 is rather academic. If that's a crime then Mav's guilty too. -- Tim Starling 04:20, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

No he's not. Mav was getting rid of his in February 2002. I assume most others with user pages in the main namespace were at that time, as well, not starting new ones. - Hephaestos 04:28, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)