Talk:Dane Rauschenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Running, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to running on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: (edit)

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep.

Contents 1 Hello 2 Hello 3 Stick to Merits and Facts 4 Fiddy2 5 Notability and Reliability of Sources 6 Notability 7 Presque Isle 8 Reliability of Sources 9 Fundraising Component of Fiddy2 10 Other projects 11 Amateur status 12 Better flow 13 Disruptions to article 14 New Efforts at Unity 14.1 Lead paragraph 14.2 Boosterism 14.3 Cause and Effect 14.4 Amateur Status 14.5 Awards 14.6 Merger 14.7 Listing Marathons 15 Enough with the edit-warring 15.1 Suggestion from 207.91.86.2 15.1.1 Lead 15.1.2 Biography 15.1.3 Running Resume 15.1.4 52 Marathon Project 15.1.5 See also 15.2 Alansohn's suggestion 15.2.1 Lead 15.2.2 Biography 15.2.3 Running Resume 15.2.4 One marathon per week in 2006 15.3 Suggestion from CruiserBob 15.3.1 Lead 15.3.2 Biography 15.3.3 Running Resume 15.3.4 One marathon per week in 2006 15.4 Suggestions from Another Editor 16 Consensus? 17 Proposal 17.1 Response of 207.91.86.2 17.1.1 Lead 17.1.2 Running 52 Marathons 17.1.3 External References 17.2 Response 18 Update on proposal 19 April 14 Proposal

[edit] Hello

User Drunkenmonkey told me to assist in removing that last 2 posts by MRPreston and reporting them as vandalism. I'm a newcomer and don't know what I'm doing here. But I hope I'm doing right.--Oda Mari 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I sent Drunkenmonkey a note that the comment he felt was vandalism was actually factual and verifiable and should be put back in the site. I don't really know how to notify either. --MRPreston --

[edit] Stick to Merits and Facts

Now that the debate about deleting this article has been closed, let's keep this article to WP:N and WP:COI standards. The only notable achievement is running 52 marathons in one year.

• Drake Well Marathon - Winning a 20-person race which you organize yourself at the local HS track is never notable.
• PT Cruiser Challenge - again this event, although novel, is not of national stature, and there is no showing that top-ranked amateur talent participated in it.
• Presque Isle Personal Endurance Classic is a non-competitive event, by its own definition.
• RRCA Runner of the Year Nomination - anyone can nominate anyone else, being selected as the winner is the distinction that meets the notability criteria.
• JFK 50K - finishing in 97th place, 2 hours, 41 minutes and 29 seconds behind the winner is never notable.

Neither Dane, nor his sockpuppets, nor his naked IP addresses should attempt to edit this article.Xcstar 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• • FYI, I have previously included your ID as a prospective sockpuppet, together with the dozen or so other User IDs who have developed an interest in Wikipedia that seems to exclusively revolve around Dane Rauschenberg and related articles. Your edit history at that point and so far to date don't instill much hope for a broader approach, even if you are a runner, and the fact that you have made about dozen Wikipedia edits that mimic the other sockpuppets and you are fully familiar with "edit wars" and WP:COI should be a flashing warning sign. I sincerely hope you will be vindicated when the checkuser is complete. I look forward to real users with a genuine interest in improving the article, but edits that summarize an article as "criticizing the project as possibly causing long term damage", when that is at best a tangential mention in the article leave me wary as to good faith intentions here. I am not sure what conflict exists with the dozen or so suspected sockpuppets or what the agenda is here, but a genuine effort to improve this article in good faith will be welcomed. Any further disruption of this article or sockpuppetry will be dealt with appropriately. Alansohn 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's please try to keep the article balanced and objective. Let's discuss changes on this page before we make major changes to the article itself. Thanks, Xcstar (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I find it humorous that you would make major changes to the article while posting a request to discuss changes. The recent changes you had made, which have been reverted, insert an unacceptable level of weasel words and unsupported POV (much of it in the form of "critics note..."), all of which is in violation of WP:NPOV. There is clearly room for improvement in this article. However, making modifications that make a mockery of a balanced tone do not help achieve neutrality, they just push it even further to one unjustifiable extreme. Can I suggest that you discuss changes on this page before you make major changes to the article itself. Thanks. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am trying to find balance between the material originally uploaded by Mr. Rauschenberg (which was previously removed) and the other relevant facts. During the AfD, several people made the observation that the notability had been established only for the 52 week "fiddy2" project. Your resurrecting the other stuff and labelling it as "accomplishment" could be viewed as unsupported POV. If Mr. Rauschenberg and his various sockpupets insist on including all of this non-notable stuff, it should be placed in context so that readers who may not be sophisticated runners can understand that a collaboration of Wikipedia editors did not find it of exceptional merit. One idea is to use the percentage ranking from the WAVA tables. A 90% ranking is elite and a 70% is a "regional class" runner. If you wish, I can calculate the rankings for these particular performances and include them in the article to demonstrate to the reader in an objective fashion how slow, non-competitive, and unnotable this running has been.Xcstar (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me as I do not know the exact etiqutte for posting a "talk" here. After looking at this page it seems obvious that none of the races run by Mr. Rauschenberg are, by themselves "notable" (save the 84 miles in the Erie race; non-competitive or not, 84 miles in 12 hours ranks as extremely notable, regardless of the level of competition). The best times run by Mr. Rauschenberg are, at best in the "regional class" as noted by the user above.

However, that is not looking at the point of the notability. Obviously, the times run are not that great in and of themsleves. But strung together over 52 consecutive weekends, they most assuredly are notable. In an attempt to find the other times this has been done, I was only able to find Mr. Rick Worley's times all of which were at or above 5 hours. The times of the predecessor whos recod he broke are difficult to obtain.

I do not see why the one user above appears convinced Mr. Rauschenberg himself added the information. It appears Mr. Rauschenberg is very forthcoming with any information necessary in either the interviews he has given or on his own website.

As for the other races listed for Mr. Rauschenberg, I think their relative nonuniqueness gives context to how very unique this Fiddy2 was. It does not appear anyone needs to know how many other runners were in the races Mr. Rauschenberg ran. The times listed are evidently not of world-class standards.

I feel the merger of these two articles is best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.242.67 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

* The times are not even worthy of regional-class standards, which can be verified by using the WAVA tables.

* The subject of multiple marathons as an endurance undertaking is now covered at: Marathon#Multiple marathons. Wikipedia users would be better served if we directed our energy into expanding that section instead of attempting to burnish Mr. Rauschenberg's reputation. Instead of a wikitable listing Mr. Rauschenberg's 52 marathons, how about producing a table showing the ten longest undertakings of running marathons on consecutive weekends. Mr.Rauschenberg was not the first person to run 52 marathons on 52 weekends, he was not the fastest, and there are several people who kept on going in a series longer than 52 weekends. Xcstar (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Xcstar, you need to realize that WP:N is only criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content - the content of the article is not limited by WP:N. Once it's been determined that Rauschenberg meets WP:N criteria for inclusion, the content of the article can be anything that is verifiable and biographically relevant to the subject of the article. A wikitable listing his marathons certainly is biographically relevant, and verifiable as well (if nothing else, by going to the results of the 52 marathons & looking for Rauschenberg). Complaining about the lack of a different table is pointless - people work on the articles they feel like working on - if you're so fired up that such a table should exist, MAKE IT. Cutting information out of an article because other information doesn't exist in other articles borders on vandalism. If you're really interested in making Wikipedia 'valid' to the running community, you should spend your time working on articles about runners you feel are notable, rather than wasting your time editing an article about someone who you don't feel is notable. No one else is directing their energy into attempting to burnish Rauschenberg's reputation, they're just interested in keeping you from hacking up an article because you feel that Rauschenberg and his efforts are just so much puffery. CruiserBob (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please give a reference to the person(s) who have done them faster. All research shows Mr. Rauschenberg WAS the fastes (by a large margin) to complete 52 marathons in 52 weekends. Your obvious contempt for Mr . Rauschenberg is apparent and colors every one of your edits (so much that you continue to blame Mr. Rauschenberg for editing this page!) Runnerman (Runnerman) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.58.106 (talk)

• Runnerman welcome to the editing of this page. Please discuss changes on this discussion page, because we are trying to maintain a balance in this article, which started off on the wrong foot by WP:COI violations. Xcstar (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Runnerguy, Danerunsalot, Arric, Revertedlesbo and 68.55.224.168 have all been blocked as Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Runnerguy They are the same person, and I surmise that they are all Mr. Rauschenberg. Xcstar (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiddy2

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiddy2, the content from Fiddy2 has been merged into this article. Feel free to edit down as required. Neil ☎ 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is way over the top, and I agree it must be paired down and the WP:COI removed. Do people believe that the wikitable of 52 races is necessary? Xcstar (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• For someone whose claim of notability is running 52 races in 52 weeks, yes. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• This article needs to be trimmed way down. Most of this does not meet notability criteria. The AfD was inconclusive. Xcstar (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The closure was no consensus for deletion. There still is no consensus for deletion of any of this material, and the result of your Fiddy2 AfD was to merge the content, not to delete it. You need to stop your efforts to spit in the face of the fact that the content of this article satisfies Wikipedia notability standards. The sockpuppetry must end. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and Reliability of Sources

The Wikipedia policy states:

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The problem with this article is that it is "based primarily on such sources." This article is an artifact of a shameless effort at self-promotion, and should be drastically cut back.Xcstar (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. tag is appropriate when external references are used to drive traffic to a website, such as fiddy2 .org. I have removed the links to fiddy2 .org, where Mr. Rauschenberg sells fiddy logo merchandise. Xcstar (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• The spam tag is entirely inappropriate. The pages linked are exclusively relevant details explicitly permitted as self-published material, without any indication that any attempt is made to sell anything. That the presence of a link that happens to do fundraising on the same site qualifies the entire article as spam is ludicrous on its face. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is a clear application of WP:SPAM which states, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." The original author is trying to drive up the Google rating of fiddy2 .org and to drive traffic to that website. Xcstar (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Other than your bad faith, you have no evidence to support your baseless claim that the fiddy2.org link is intended "to drive traffic to that website". Unless you have evidence to support your claim, it will be removed. If you insist that there are issues with notability, it's probably time to start a second AfD. Other than that, your notability tag also cannot be justified, as evidenced by the refusal of the community to support your previous attempt at deletion. In your new AfD, I encourage you to site WP:SPAM as justification for deletion. Other than that, your edits are simply a massive and persistent WP:POINT violation. Alansohn (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Google doesn't follow links from Wikipedia, and of course if you type in "Fiddy2" your going to get the Figgy2 website even if there was not a single link to the website on the Internet. Your thinking of people who want to have their websites show up when you type in "sex" or "car" as the top link, and that is dependent on the number of incoming links. So adding a link to a car dealership on every car article in Wikipedia would be spam, this isn't. Its no different than the link to Pamela Anderson's homepage where she sells t-shirts, photos, and a few years ago was auctioning of her used breast implants. A homepage link is part of the Person infobox, so I don't see it as spam. I am going to remove the spam tag. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I removed notability tag. If NPR and The Washington Post, and even the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are writing about you, you are notable objectively. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, let me say it is good to see someone who is not a member of Dane's immediate family contributing to this article. Next, please note that reliable sources, such as the Washington Post, still does not count if it is advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination." WP:N Mr. Rauschenberg sent out numerous press releases and some were picked up in "coverage with low levels of discrimination." A good example is the new references to the Arlington Sun-Gazette, which is a limited distribution, advertising supported newsprint publication. The fact that Mr. Rauschenberg's close friend, unpaid writer Jay Wind, has a puff piece published, does not make the reference the work of a paid journalist with the normal levels of journalistic judgment and discrimination.
• Assuming that an argument can be made that being one of several people to have run 52 marathons on 52 consecutive weekends is notable, the question remains as to whether it warrants separate coverage, or whether this entire matter should be treated in Marathon#Multiple marathons where Mr. Rauschenberg can be viewed in the same context as other people who have run 52, 79 or even 159. Xcstar (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to be a deep and fundamental understanding as to what the term "notability" means in general and in Wikipedia. Notable does not mean "fastest", "best", "most" or "unique". Notability means that one is "worthy of notice". The entire effort to try to "prove" that others have run more marathons, done so in a shorter period of time or raised more money is not only irrelevant, but seems to be part of a deliberate effort to drag in unrelated issues that are unconnected to the article's notability. While one may quibble about some of the sources, the year-long coverage from The Washington Post, NPR and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, among many, many others, is a prime example of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:N defines as supporting a subject that is "presumed to be notable". Your monomaniacal obsession with this one article simply does not stand up to any objective scrutiny. If you truly believe that the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, it's time to start a second AfD or move on to some other article that can be the target of your newest obsession. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that something does not have to be unique to be notable. "Man bites dog." would be notable even if it happened a dozen different times and each is reported in the newspaper by professional journalists. The problem is that this article is "Dog bites man," coupled with a systematic effort at self-promotion, including the creation of two Wikipedia articles. We need a notability standard that can be objectively applied to prevent runners from creating wikitables of all of their past races. There are websites for that purpose, such as yourrunning.com or marathonmaniacs. My fundamental concern is that Wikipedia needs credibility in the running community to attract editors and gain valid, competent coverage. This article has received widespread attention and ridicule, and is doing damage that outweighs any gain in providing reference information to the few people seeking objective data on Dane Rauschenberg. I hope WP:RUN can work up a standard. Xcstar (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Your fundamental obsession is with this article, to a point where you have edited the article two or three times more than any other editor. Your edit history shows that all but ten of your nearly 150 edits are related to this one article. You have already acknowledged that you are a sockpuppet. My concern is that notability has already been demonstrated, consensus is that the article should stay as is and you are still working day and night to disrupt this one article. I will tell you again that it's time to start another AfD or to move on; $#!+ or get off the pot. Move on, already. Find a new hobby. Perhaps running. Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your suggestion. If we can control the WP:COI contributions from the friends and family of Mr. Rauschenberg, I would not object to continuing the existence of the article. I will edit any changes from IP-address-users who seek to shift the article from neutrality into a puff-piece of favorable publicity. My AfD on Fiddy2 was prompted by unrelenting puff-piece editing by the Pro-Rauchenberg editor(s). Xcstar (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's an interesting offer, but the biggest problem with WP:COI on this article seems to be your persistent obsession with inserting WP:POV edits. Other than trying to create stilted comparisons to other notable efforts or to make snide comments about how the feat was accomplished, you've done nothing but disrupt this article. Please start the second AfD already and see if there is anyone who agrees with you. Otherwise, it's time to end this obsessive-compulsive behavior. Start running, say, five miles a day. After a week, you'll be 35 miles away from your computer and be far less disruptive on this article. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presque Isle

Runnerguy has asked whether we should continue to designate Presque Isle as a "non-competitive" event. My concern is that if you don't include the word non-competitive, people will assume that it was a competitive ultramarathon race. As for 84 miles being noteworthy, there are no records maintained for 12-hour races. Official records are maintained for 1-hour track runs and 24-hour track runs. By way of comparison, the US record for 24-hours was set in 1999 by Mark Godale who ran 261,454 metres (162 mi). [1] So assuming that a national-class runner would run much more than half that distance in 12 hours, Mr. Rauschenberg's performance would not set a record. The article probably should not mention the event at all, but certainly not twice. Xcstar (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem again is that no one is claiming that Rauschenberg holds any records, is unique, better or faster than any other individual. The Wikipedia standard is notability, and the ample evidence from multiple sources is that he is notable. That the event is non-competitive is irrelevant; he participated in the event, ran 84 miles and there is reliable documentation for the fact. Alansohn (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree that there is reliable documentation for the 84 miles, and I am trying to verify the claim. This is not like the NYRR's 24-hour run or the Ft. Meade 24-hour run where there are officials counting your laps. The new footnote is an effort to capture the casual, non-competitive nature of the event. The 2007 edition did use transponder timing, but I have made inquiries as to how the laps were recorded in 2003. Xcstar (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I can live with the Alansohn (talk) current edit until we get contrary evidence on the 84-mile issue. Thanks, Xcstar (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• It is implausible that a person with a marathon PR of 3:29 could cover 3.2 times that distance in only 3.4 the amount of time. I am waiting to hear back. Xcstar (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is essential for the accuracy of the article to state that the Presque Isle event was non-competitive, if the event is to be mentioned. I personally think that the event is not notable. Xcstar (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Sources

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. "'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability." A major problem here is that Mr. Rauschenberg (with his unique world-view) is the ultimate source of much of this information. If he asserts a fact, and it gets repeated on a blog or in print media without fact-checking such as the Arlington Sun-Gazette, that does not establish the fact as true.

The Guidelines confirm this: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." Most of the stuff here is just rehash of the fiddy2 press releases or are blog submissions.

Is there a source, other than Mr. Rauschenberg, that saw him run 84 miles at Presque Isle? How do we know whether his expenses were self-funded vs. donated? While Mr. Rauschenberg's statements are reliable if they are "admissions against interest,' they should not be accepted without fact-checking. Xcstar (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The personal attack crusade on Rauschenberg has to end. Asking for "improved references" in an article with over two dozen sources is simply unacceptable. If there is a specific fact that you question -- and you will question and attack every word ad nauseum, emphasis on the nauseum -- then tag it and make a genuine effort to find a better source. The snide, smarmy attitude from you that every single statement about Rauschenberg requires is completely contrary to Wikipedia's goals and objectives. The fact that over 95% of all of your edits are about this one article demonstrates that there is some deep and fundamental obsession that must lead to questions of your rationality. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sources are not reliable or verifiable if they are based on the untested assertions of the subject. A sports story in the Washington Post is a good source. A puff-piece written by an unpaid friend for the local penny-saver is not a good source, as demonstrated by the false assertion that there were no other marathons on Christmas weekend 2006. Mr. Rauschenberg would be presumed to have known about the race, because it was featured on the website of one of his organizations, marathonmaniacs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcstar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you believe a specific source is in question, use a "fact" tag and try to have a meaningful discussion here of what your real issue is. A reliable and verifiable newspaper source has been added about the 84 miles run at Presque Isle. If you have an issue with this source, I would suggest trying to have the WP:V and WP:RS Wikipedia policies rewritten. Other than that, it's time to find move your abusive crusade to some other article that might benefit from your disruption. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that WP:V and WP:RS support my position and not DR/Runnerguy. If DR self-reports "I ran 84 miles," and then the Erie Club lists everyone's self-reported distance without any claim that it was something more than an non-competitive, unofficiated, self-reporting event, and the Erie Paper reports that DR self-reported the 84 miles, there are no "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It could be that DR believes he ran 84 laps, but most people cannot keep accurate count during 12 hours of hard running. Xcstar (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Here's the problem: I've added reliable sources from both the sponsor and from a reliable newspaper source for the Presque Isle event. These sources re in complete and total compliance of WP:RS and WP:V. If the next step of your disruptive jihad is to continue to attack the individual and the sources, the burden on you is to come up with a reliable and verifiable source that contradicts the information in the sources already provided. Other than that, all we have is your bad faith presumption on your part of an inaccuracy. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are you confusing primary sources with secondary sources? 158.59.27.249 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fundraising Component of Fiddy2

By Mr. Rauschenberg's own admission, he did not undertake Fiddy2 as a fundraiser. He added a fundraising component a few months into the planning of the project. http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum9/HTML/001605.shtml We need to avoid any implication that fundraising was an initial component. Xcstar (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• False. Completely and totally false. Please read the following article "Top This Resolution: A Marathon a Week" from The Washington Post dated January 8, 2006, and written before the first marathon started. "Rauschenberg's quest, which he dubbed Fiddy2, begins today. He plans to travel all over the country, including to Alaska and Hawaii, to run in 52 marathons." and continues to state that "As he runs, Rauschenberg is raising money for L'Arche Mobile, which helps people with mental disabilities.... He hopes to raise $52,000." The source has been included in the article for weeks, if not months, was written before the 52-marathon streak started and makes the clearest possible statement of the fundraising goal. Any further effort to falsely imply that this was not the case will be treated as vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• True. DR states that it took months of planning in 2005 before starting the project. The Jan 8 article was the result of DR's initial blast of press releases in 2005. To quote Mr. Rauschenberg himself, he "added L'Arche Mobile as the beneficiary of the endeavor a few months into the planning." He decided to run the marathons, and then decided later to add a fundraising component, when the non-charity version of Fiddy2 did not capture media attention. Xcstar (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misleadingly False The article does not state that the marathon plan and fundraising goal began simultaneously. Nor is there any reason other than pushing your own POV to turn this into an issue. As the article stated before your vandalism, the first race of 2006 was run with the goal of running one marathon per week AND to raise $52,000 for the Mobile, Alabama chapter of L'Arche International. If you have a reliable and verifiable source to rebut that claim, please provide it. Your depiction of the fundraising effort as a "controversy" on the L'Arche article is patently despicable POV pushing on your part. This type of behavior will not be tolerated. Alansohn (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this kind of information to be completely irrelevant in the L'Arche entry. If someone wants to start a L'Arche Mobile page, then start one and put this information there. L'Arche has over 100 chapters in the world and falling short of $10,000 is an irrelevant factoid that is more than distracting, it's annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.18.149 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• The contrary view is that it is indicative of the degree to which L'Arche supervises its fundraising efforts. The original goal was to both net $52,000 to fund L'Arche as well as to underwrite the cost of a year's worth of travel to marathons. Xcstar (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This "contrary view" exists solely as your obsession. Insinuations of supervisory failures or of perceived shortcomings in the manner in which the fundraising effort was conceived and initiated, and in its success are purely POV on your part that violates WP:SYNTH. These shameless efforts at defamation in clear violation of WP:BLP must be put to a stop. If you cannot find reliable and verifiable sources to support your repeated false claims, it will be removed again in compliance with WP:BLP. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other projects

By Mr. Rauscheberg's own admission, he did not research other on-going running projects to see if a 52-consecutive week marathon streak would be outstanding. What public attention he got was from people who did not realize how his 52-week effort compared with the other projects. This article should not repeat that mistake. Xcstar (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is no Wikipedia requirement that someone make a plan to do something "outstanding" in order to recognized as being notable. There is nothing in the article that says he planned something "outstanding" nor is that in any way relevant. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is a requirement that we acurately state the facts and place the project in context. Otherwise the article becomes a puff piece. Suppose Fiddy2 was one of thousands of family vacations to drive across the country by car. Wikipedia would not write "Dane Rauschenberg completed his impressive goal of driving his car across the country from Washington to California." Xcstar (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• The only inaccuracies are being inserted on your part. I couldn't care less how you or anyone else spend your vacation time. Notability is not determined by whether or not you think the goal is interesting, unusual or unique. Notability is based on how notable the individual is based on reliable and verifiable coverage, a standard that has clearly been met by this article. The goal was stated before the marathons started, it was regularly reported on before, during and after the 52 marathons, and the Wikipedia:Notability standard could not be more clearly satisfied. Other than your pathetic efforts to insert your own bias, the article is neutral and balanced. If you persist in your BS claim that he is not notable, please start a new AfD. Otherwise, please move on. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Isn't this just an article about how Mr. Rauschenberg chose to spend his weekends and vacations in 2006? My point is that the article should place this activity in its context so that the reader will know there were other people doing similar things contemporaneously, but were doing them with more impressive attributes. Otherwise the article becomes a puff piece. Xcstar (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly it's an article about how Mr. Rauchenberg chose to spend his weekends and vacations in 2006. But the media coverage of how he spent his weekends indicates that it is something more notable than how a couple hundred million other Americans spent their weekends in 2006. The article has all the context it needs - Mr. Rauschenberg spent his weekends running marathons to raise money for a charity, and it was covered by numerous media outlets. CruiserBob (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur status

A long-time contributor to this article User:69.143.1.252 (talk) continues to raise the question of whether Dane Rauschenberg can be classified as an amateur athlete and whether it matters. An argument can be made that because DR sought financial support with the goal of providing all of his expenses for the year-long project, it is arguable that it can be classified as an "amateur" undertaking. Rather than get into this issue, the best solution is to be silent. Certainly that characterization does not belong in the lead paragraph. The debate emerged previously, when some editors sought to compare DR with other runners who had successfully raised corporate support for their multi-marathon projects. (E.g., Dean Karnazes and Chuck Engel are "professional" runners.) All three sought financial support for traveling around the country during 2006, and the "amateur"/"professional" label is not meaningful in that context. I welcome the thoughts of others. Xcstar (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• You'd think that you would have given up the charade now that you've been outed as a sockpuppet. Your distinction that an individual receiving any form of financial assistance would be a "professional" may have been valid in the 1960s. See the Jim Thorpe article for someone whose Olympic medals were taken away after it was discovered he had been paid yo play minor league baseball. In the past few decades, Olympic athletes can receive extensive compensation for their efforts while retaining their amateur standing. To call Rauschenberg a "professional" athlete because he "sought financial report" has to be one of the most ridiculous claims you've made so far in a rather pathetic spiral of ludicrous claims. That Rauschenberg undertook this effort, paid his won expenses out of his pocket and accomplished this goal as an amateur only affirms his notability. If you are still arguing this BS claim, why do you refuse to start another Afd? Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• The NPR reference does not address the amateur status issue. If DR introduced himself to the interviewer as being an amateur, the NPR reporter would have no way to independently evaluate it. Please state what your definition is. DR and his sockpupets sought to draw a distinction between DR and Dean Karnazes and Chuck Engel -- DR was unable to gain financial support, while Karnazes and Engel were successful to a limited degree. Perhaps it would be better to use the "unsuccessful"/"successful" label instead of the more confusing (and emotionally ladden) "amateur"/"professional" distinction. By the way, I objected to characterizing Karnazes and Engel as professionals in the article which lead DR to try to label himself as an "amateur." In the business of running 50+ marathons within a year, there is no amateur or professional status.
• Alternatively, perhaps you are trying to label DR's fundraising efforts as "amateur." I doubt that anyone with good business judgment would solicit funds expecting to receive them from a 170-member running club. Xcstar (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone with good business sense would solicit any and everyone if they are trying to get funds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.1.252 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the above comment came from Rauschenber. Tell us why you believe yourself to be an amateur? Soliciting everyone has backlash. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better flow

I have now spent two hours on this Wikipedia contribution. I hope everyone will find it an improvement. The article was confusing because it does not keep separate the fundraising for the project and the fundraising for the charity. It is better to keep those separate. Also, I have added materials on Mr. Rauschenberg's new job -- they are hard to find because his new employer keeps mispelling his name. I would like to accurately report his job title, but he notes that he is still negotiating his title and role.^[1] (It takes a great deal of courage to move to Utah for a new job without knowing what it is.) He has changed his LinkIn page to describe his profession as "Race Director/Course Designer", but that does not sound like a job title. Runreston (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• A warmest welcome to User:Runreston, the newest member of the Racepacket sockpuppet family. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd) for further details. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I am not sure what your name calling means, but it has been disproven.
• I believe that the article now correctly separates the fundraising for Fiddy2 expenses for the fundraising (which began later) for charity. Although Rauschenberg may have had $20K of unreimbursed travel expenses, his entry fees which amounted to over $5K were generally covered. Rauschenberg has made conflicting statements regarding monetary support, corporate support, and corporate sponsorship. I have tried to parse through these statements made in the news articles and on his blog postings as carefully as I can. The current version reflect that he had his entry fees waived and did have "sponsors," although L'Arche was careful to state that his travel and lodging was not covered.
• Rauschenberg was very vague as to his criteria for selecting the races to enter. Among his criteria was whether his running friends were going to be there. I have left this issue out of the article. Please give my version careful consideration before just pasting in your own back in -- your contains many grammatical errors as well as lacks balance. Thanks Runreston (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• It is important to keep the discussion of fundraising for Fiddy2 expenses and for L'Arch separate. Runreston (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptions to article

The only disruptions to the article are the repeated edits by Mr. Alanson and Mr. Rauschenberg. It is time that they set this aside and let other people try to develop an accurate article. It's rather hard to take the latest abuse seriously given that it's coming from a confirmed sockpuppet, but let's deal with the nonsense in a systematic fashion:

1. Rauschenberg's primary claim to notability is running 52 marathons in 52 weekends in 2006. The latest changes from User:Racepacket make it appear that his primary claim to notability is as a motivational speaker. Assuming he has started this position as a speaker / race organizer, this all drives off of his running accomplishments. A major aspect of the 52 marathon accomplishment was a fundraising goal, which reached no less than $43K of a $52,000 goal. There is no justification for removing these accomplishments from the lead, which now bears no relevance to Rauschenberg's extremely strong claims of notability.

• • I can't speak to the edits of others (which I can't locate), but the lead paragraph is too confusing and jumbles the fund raising with the running and current occupation. The fund raising is not presented accurately because it jumbles fund raising for L'Arche with fund raising for Fiddy2. I quoted the reference "^ a b Sciullo, Maria. "Running: Marathon of marathons about to end", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 30, 2006. Accessed October 28, 2007." to support a sentence both for the last race and the $32K raised by that date. It is misleading to imply that more was raised by the end of the project, because his goal was to raise $52K in 52 weeks. The article supports both the date of the race and the amount raised at that time. Runreston (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

1. A "biography" section was added by User:Racepacket, focusing on major background information of Rauschenberg's life, which consists of the following: 1 & 2) he went to Penn State and attended an unnamed law school. 3) a twisted allegation that a mention of Rauschenberg in a 2004 article in The Washington Post somehow shows that "Rauschenberg started testing his ability to gain free publicity by obtaining a Washington Post article and photograph covering his efforts to use craigslist to obtain a blind date for a 2004 New Years Eve party." 4) an unsupported non sequitur that he continues to blog for his current employer. The entire paragraph seems to have been thrown together to be a place to toss in an entirely unsupported (and unsupportable) allegation.

• • Just to clarify, the first editor to insert the craigslist episode into the article was MrPreston on 2007-09-28. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, you are agreeing that other than the craigslist item for which you deny responsibility, the rest of teh paragraph was constructed exclusively "to be a place to toss in an entirely unsupported (and unsupportable) allegation"? Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't speak to the edits of others (which I can't find), but it seems to me that educational background is permissible. The section as developed by Mr. Alanson discusses the running experiments which Rauschenberg made in preparation for fiddy2, and it seems that Rauschbenberg's experiments in gaining free publicity would also be relevant. Runreston (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

1. An inordinate and twisted series of misinterpretations aims at defaming Rauschenberg by implying that waivers of entry fees, meals and sneakers were somehow improper, based exclusively on unjustifiable misreadings of blog posts. Statements such as "He continued to attempt to obtain outside funding of fiddy2 expenses even after the end of 2006." are provided without any support or source.

• • My edits are intended to reflect the statements made by Rauschenberg to interviewers, on his blog postings and on his website regarding his expenses. There is nothing wrong with Mr. Rauschenberg getting his entry fee waived. In fact, L'Arche Mobile offers a series of premiums for people who pledge to raise money for the chapter under its "RUN 4 FREE" program. If you pledge to raise $6K, you not only get a free entry in the First Light Marathon and free air fare, you get a Carribean Cruise. We do not know what L'Arche offered in exchange for the $52K pledge, but Mr. Alanson's edits are misleading in implying that Mr. Rauschenberg did not have support and sponsorship. There is nothing wrong with accepting these (they are available to anyone willing to raise money for L'Arche), but it is wrong to imply that they don't exist. Runreston (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

1. You gotta love the claim (see above) that "Rauschenberg was very vague as to his criteria for selecting the races to enter. Among his criteria was whether his running friends were going to be there. I have left this issue out of the article.", which would be hardly worth mentioning by any rational person. There seems to be no reason that Rauschenberg could not -- or should not -- have selected the 52 marathons and way he saw fit, even if, God forbid, his friends were participating in some or all of these marathons.

• • Again, I am not going to add this to the article. But there has been much blog discussion that Mr. Rauschenberg was trying to travel to meet a female marathoner, and that his travel expenses were governed exclusively by a spirit of charity. Runreston (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In summary, these latest changes take a useful, descriptive article, and attempt to turn it into a meaningless pile of false and misleading insinuations. To make a long story short, I have no idea what bug User:Racepacket and his growing family of sockpuppets have up their behind about Mr. Rauschenberg, nor why anyone would devote so much of their time to trying to defame him. Given that the article has been stable and that there is strong agreement on its current wording, any editor will need to demonstrate that any proposed changes are properly supported and meet consensus for change before any edits are made to the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further abuse of this article will not be tolerated. Excusing a statement that "Rauschenberg started testing his ability to gain free publicity by obtaining a Washington Post article" somehow improves the article is the sign of someone whose obsessive hatred for Dane Rauschenberg simply knows no end. Do not make any edits to this article without generating any sense of consensus here for the changes. Reinserting the same malicious edits is just further bad faith in the sockpuppet tradition we've seen proven here time and time again. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Efforts at Unity

I am hoping that we can confine the article to just the facts and leave Mr. Alansohn's editorial comments about Mr. Rauschenberg's motives out of the article. Runreston (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the clearest possible instructions specifying that consensus needs to be obtained before making any more disruptive changes has been ignored again. It is rather disturbing that another User:Runreston has come along with a rather unhealthy obsession that has him dedicating 90% of his edits to this one article. User:Racepacket justified his sockpuppetry based on supposed concerns that Mr. Rauschenberg was going to beat him up. I'd love to hear what the excuse is for our latest incarnation and his obsessive monomania. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is progressing nicely under the "New Efforts at Unity" discussion. Please respond the the specific concerns expressed in each of the subsections below instead of just reverting all of the work of the group from the past two months. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

Although the paragraph is hopeless confusing, I am leaving it alone except for the sentence regarding the last race which is moved to the fiddy2 discussion. I have added the fact that there was a quid pro quo for adopting L'Arch as the beneficiary, to avoid a terribly misleading lead sentence. Runreston (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• The lead paragraph clearly summarizes running accomplishments and the associated fundraising goal. Nor has any evidence been provided to support the claim that there is anything "misleading". Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• It is very misleading to imply that Mr. Rauschenberg was motivated by a charitable impulse rather than a business arrangement to cover some of his Fiddy2 expenses. If you can't state the facts objectively, it is better to leave them out of the article. Runreston (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is very misleading to imply that a business arrangement existed when there is none. There are ample reliable, verifiable and independent sources to demonstrate that the 52 marathon effort was accompanied by a charitable fundraising effort. If you have objective, independent, reliable and verifiable sources from newspapers or magazines to support your claims, provide them. I haven't seen you provide any yet from you other than pushing your own personal point of view, once that matches the sockpuppets you have been matched to. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Although one person mistakenly used the word "amateur" to describe Mr. Rauschenberg two years ago, I doubt that he would use that word today. Again, it is misleading to include it. The reference is not to a fact-checked journalistic report, but rather to an off-hand remark by a feature reporter on the radio. Runreston (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The source provided, off-hand remark or not, states clearly that Rauschenberg is not a professional. If you have objective, independent, reliable and verifiable sources from newspapers or magazines to support the claim that he is now a professional runner, provide them and I will be more than happy to support your efforts to change the term. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • The source you cite is not "objective, independent, reliable and verifiable." You have the burden of proof to establish that an adjective properly characterizes the subject of the article. Since you can't, the adjective should stay out. If the point is controversial, put it in the later discussion where both sides can be presented. Axes should not be ground in the lead paragraph. Runreston (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The disruptive reverts are trying to add material that is duplicated in the fundraising paragraph. It also distorts the idea behind the article -- is this an article about running 52 marathons in one year or is this an article about Mr. Rauschenberg missteps as a charity spokesman. I think we should stick to the first topic and avoid the second, regardless of your view point. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boosterism

I have removed the gratuitous quotes which are not objective, and tend to booster the fund raising. Runreston (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Quote all come from appropriate reliable sources. Previous sockpuppet had raised issues that funds raised were inadequate and source was provided to support the relationship, no matter which sockpuppet might come along next. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Since you are removed citations and quotations on the grounds that they promote a "point of view" the same standard should apply to removing the quotes -- which add nothing to the article and are highly selective, and are not fact-checked journalism. Runreston (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You will need to specify what it is that is gratuitous or non-objective. Coming from someone who could add "Rauschenberg started testing his ability to gain free publicity by obtaining a Washington Post article and photograph covering his efforts to use craigslist to obtain a blind date for a 2004 New Years Eve party" (see this link for one example) and can insist that this is an "objective" statement is very hard to take seriously. The fact that some 90% of your edits are to the Dane Rauschenberg article, combined with the fact that the checkuser confirms you as a likely sockpuppet, makes it very hard to take any of your actions as being in good faith. This appears to be more likely a part of a longstanding and malicious effort to defame Mr. Rauschenberg. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The rambling quote which do not match the propositions for which the reference is cited, are unwarranted boosterism. Runreston (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Every quote in this article is supported by an appropriate reliable and verifiable source. If you believe there is any statement unsupported by an appropriate source, bring it to this page for discussion before making any further disruptive changes. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This is an article about a runner and a running project. The quotes added to the footnotes read line a fundraising brochure for a particular charity. Noone remembers the exact charity that Terry Fox adopted. The particular charity that Robert E. Lee adopted following the Civil War is not of historic note. It is time to call a halt to the use of this article (and Wikipedia) as a means for furthering any particular fund raising project. If you disagree, please discuss it here, before changing the article. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The sentence, "The local organization noted that they were "grateful that Dane is willing to share this with others".[3][18]" is typical of the sloppy puffery in the version which Alansohn is trying to dictate to the group. What is the antecedent of "this?" The sentence is POV and irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. Every person who donates money to a charity gets a letter back saying that the charity is "grateful" for the gift. Footnote 3 does not support the sentence as currently worded. It is sentences like this, as well as gratuitous quotes in the footnotes which makes the most recent 158.59.27.249 version preferable to the Alansohn version. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • You sir are a sockpuppet. You have been tried, convicted and executed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket, yet you refuse to respect Wikipedia policy. The antecedent for "this" sentence is an edit made by one of your other incarnations, User:Xcstar, which maliciously and falsely defamed Rauschenberg, implying that the charity had somehow been shortchanged. Unfortunately, User:158.59.27.249 is also a sockpuppet of yours. The definition of sockpuppetry is using multiple IDs to create the false appearance of consensus. It is gratuitous abuse of Wikipedia policy, all part of a disturbing obsession with Dane Rauschenberg, that demonstrate that it's well past time that User:Racepacket, together with all of your other sockpuppets, is finally tossed out of Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
          • The quotes in the footnotes do not belong, and are relevant to the 52-marathons-in-a-year topic of this article. If you want to write an article about L'Arche fundraising, do it under that topic. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cause and Effect

I find Mr. Rauschenberg's posts very revealing, particularly: http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum9/HTML/001605.shtml Retrieved Jan 19, 2008. I would urge everyone to read this before making further edits. I don't understand why Mr. Alanson keeps deleting it without explanation. The charity fundraising was a response to Mr. Rauschenberg approaching the First Light Marathon for free entry and travel expenses. The quid pro quo was to pledge to raise money for L'Arche. Runreston (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• The "source" is a laundry list. If you can point to where you believe the "proof" is located it would be helpful. Proving reliable and verifiable sources to prove the allegation would be even more helpful. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It is clear the Mr. Rauschenberg started on this quest without a charitable component. He added L'Arche only because they agreed to pick up a portion of his costs. Runreston (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think we're in agreement that he chose a charity after starting his quest. Your allegations that he chose "L'Arche only because they agreed to pick up a portion of his costs" will require strong reliable and verifiable sources to back up the claim. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Without getting into his motives, the question is whether someone who agrees to raise funds to defray some of his costs makes the lead paragraph the appropriate place to try to strike a balance and explain the sequence of events. Runreston (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • You have repeatedly impugned Rauschenberg's motives. If you can provide reliable, independent and verifiable sources to support your claim that there was a quid pro quo, let's review it here. Without it, you're violating WP:BLP. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
          • The current draft does not discuss anyone's motives, and the long quotes in the footnotes discussed above under boosterism are clearly a comment on motives. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Status

See discussion above. There is no such thing as a professional mulitiple marathon runner, nor is there an amateur. There are just people who run a lot of marathons. Mr. Rauschenberg disparaged Engel for being a professional, and when that attack was removed, then the debate turned to labeling Rauschenberg as an amateur. It does not matter! Runreston (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Unsure of what Engel has to do with anything. The source provided supports Rauschenberg's non-professional status. The claim that there is no such thing as "a professional mulitiple^[sic] marathon runner" makes the obsessive determination to "prove" that funding was accepted all the more baffling. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• The only person advancing the amateur/professional status was Mr. Rauschenberg's edits to the article. There is no meaningful definition of a "amateur multiple marathon series runner." No one can do this as a profession. People can be paid to organize races, and Mr. Rauschenberg falls into that class of people. Runreston (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps the people in this debate are talking past each other. There are many comments on the blogs expressing concern about runners with less than award-winning performances seeking sponsorship dollars or fundraising dollars. If the Rauschenberg context is too emtional to analyze, look at these threads about Dean Karnazes:

[2] and [3]. The concerns apply to Rauschenberg as well. Most competitive runners seeking funding strive to perform above the threashold that attracts sponsorship. Here we have Rauschenberg labeling Karanzes and Engel as "professionals," yet Rauschenberg, Karanzes and Engel all earn their livings with jobs related to running, and not by prize money and the sponsorships that come from elite running performances. The word "amateur" does not mean "holds a full time job," nor does it mean "has no monetary stake in his performace." Perhaps "non-elite" or "middle of the pack" would better fit the sentence than "amateur" or just avoid characterizing Rauschenberg altogether. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Did you forget to sign in as User:Runreston, or are you here separately as a sockpuppet of User:Racepacket. I like the way you try to make it look like you're a third party in this conversation. Alansohn (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that Mr. Rauchenberg's job takes him on travel throughout the United States, there is no telling which IP addresses he will use. I can agree to "non-elite" or "middle of the pack" runner instead of amateur runner. Runreston (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That you can state the complete BS that Mr. Rauschenberg traveled around the country and found the IP address that you and your puppetmaster User:Racepacket have used (I presume erroneously) and that was one of the key elemnts in pinning you down as a sockpuppet, is so utterly laughable as to undermine any remaining shred of credibility that you might have. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Alansohn's proposed NPR reference is out of date. Is there any current reported authority that a journalist considers Rauschenberg an "amateur" after he has taken his new job in the running industry? 158.59.27.249 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• No response from Alansohn in a month on this one, and I have added quotes from the Pittsburgh and Washington papers backing up the "middle of the pack" claim. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the characterizations attributed to Rauschenberg have put this to rest, and we are going to stay with "middle of the pack." I could probably come up with a 1959 newspaper article calling Cassius Clay an amateur boxer, but that would not justify a 2008 Wikipedia article claiming that he was an amateur his entire life. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • All you have to do is find a source that documents him as a professional, and that would justify a change. Until then, you need to find clear consensus support from non-sockpuppets to support any change. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Perhaps Alansohn and 158.59.27.249 are in agreement. There is one NPR off-the-cuff reference that used the word "amateur" before Rauschenberg made his career change. The consensus version of the article cites to both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Washington Post to support the "middle of the pack" description. Nobody is advocating a description of Rauschenberg as a "professional." The world is not divided neatly into a set of amateurs and a set of professionals. People do things for which no professional track exists -- running a marathon each weekend is an example. We can all agree that when Rauschenberg ran a marathon each weekend, he finished in the middle of the pack, and he admits that when he is interviewed by the press. Webster's defines amateur as "one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science." 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • User:Racepacket, User:207.91.86.2, User:158.59.27.249 and User:158.59.91.249 are all one and the same. I love the way you pretend that other sockpuppets are actually different editors. It's amazing how you only dig a deeper grave each time you try to push this crap, where User:158.59.27.249 and User:158.59.91.249 are the ones editing the article and User:207.91.86.2 is the one commenting here. Keep this up, more evidence only aids the Sockpuppet report already in progress. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
          • If running sub-3 in the middle of 52 marathons is "middle of the pack" then I want to be that "mediocre"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.132.23.100 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Good to hear from you again, Dane. As you recall, you were running some of these in the 3:30 to 5:17 range, and only one of them at sub-3. I enjoyed talking with you on Saturday. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Only outstanding awards should be included in articles, not minor awards conferred by a 4 person website or a 170 person running club. There are National Awards and honors for runners, but the two first added by Mr. Rauschenberg do not have anywhere near that stature and should be deleted. Runreston (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reliable and verifiable sources are used to source the awards won. Readers are more than able to pass judgment on notability of any individual award based on teh sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has the biographies of many wonderful people, many of whom won awards in grade school, high school, etc. They don't belong in a Wikipedia article. If Mr. Rauschenberg won a penmanship award in Third Grade, would you include it? Just because four guy who run a website decide to praise someone does not warrant inclusion in this article. Nor does an award from a small running club in a metropolitan area which hosts two large, well-repected running clubs that also give out annual awards. Do you have any evidence, other than the two websites, to establish the bona fides or gravitas of these awards? It reads as though the author is despirate "build up" Mr. Rauschenberg's standing. Runreston (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Mr. Rauschenberg is one of those wonderful people. He has accomplished something that attracted nationwide and worldwide media attention. Recognition of his accomplishments, with appropriate sources, is directly relevant to his biography. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • "Wonderful people" do not write their own wikipedia articles and do not pad their resumes with "Nominated for RRCA Runner of the Year." Wikipedia policy requires that secondary sources must support the listing of awards. Let's keep the awards out of the article until someone other than the 4-person website or the club's website reports it. Try to find a reliable journalist's report of the awards, and we can add them back in. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, no response from Alansohn in a month, and no secondary sources to back the claimed awards, either. To be fair, if you include the Marathonguide "award," which I believe should be left out, you should also include the fact that the 1st place ranking went to Chuck Engel, who ran 52 marathons in 2006 and won a number of them. As I understand Rauchenberg's argument, Rauchenberg's achievement is more worthy because one of Engel's races was rescheduled due to a winter storm, and Engle ran two marathons in one weekend to make up the rescheduled date. I don't think that really matters much.

[edit] Merger

see other discussion. Runreston (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listing Marathons

There is no reason to list individual marathons unless there was something exceptional about them. I have a sentence saying he has run 71 marathons, and I've kept the three bullets about the three races which Mr. Rauschenberg listed in is early autobiographical attempts here. Nothing special about the others in the biography paragraph worth discussing. Runreston (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Providing a select list of marathons run before during and after Raschenberg's 52-marathon accomplishment, properly supported with reliable and verifiable sources, is directly relevant to the subject at hand, and will be restored. Alansohn (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how you selected the particular marathons that you have inserted. This appears to be based on an earlier narative written by Mr. Rauschenberg, and you are taking it out of context to represent a complete biography. What are you trying to convey, and is it encyclopedic? Runreston (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • These marathons were stepping stones on his path to becoming a marthoner and his ultimately successful endeavor to run 52 marathons in 52 weeks in 2006. If you have an alternative list, present it here for discussion. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • • This is not clear from the edit that you have proposed. It looks as though the marathon listing was taken from an earlier version written by Rauschenberg. Please try to rewrite. 158.59.27.249 (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
          • It looks like your comment was copied from a previous comment by one of the many abusive sockpuppets with some bizarre axe to grind with Mr. Rauschenberg. Little exists in the article that has not already been extensively rewritten. If there are specific issues of content they should be addressed here in detail and consensus established for any changes here, before any changes are made to the article. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Hey, 158.59.27.249 (talk), you have a valid point. Obviously the article has not been "extensively rewritten" because User:Alansohn keeps reverting any and all changes in a text-book example of violating WP:OWN. Keep on doing your own editing, and ignore a notorious Wikibully. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Look who's back for more sockpuppetry! Take a gander at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket for a reminder of a rather definitive violation of Wikipedia policy. I will leave a note at User:Racepacket that any further sockpuppetry and abuse of Wikipedia policy will almost certainly result in an even more lengthy block. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the encouragement. I have read the Wikibully article and the one useful thing that I have learned is that "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" one of the past editors here, has been canvassed by and is cooperating with "Alansohn." How much do you want to bet that they are friends or relatives of Rauschenberg? Because there is no effort to fix the many deficiencies discussed above, I am returning the article to the former version. Please do not change it without getting consensus here. 158.59.91.249 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd be fascinated to find exactly how I am related to "Dane Rauschenberg". Your edits have been reverted, again. Please feel free to justify any future edits and obtaining consensus before further malicious edits. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think the tone of your edits suffer from the same lack of discernment that were present in the earlier edits during the months that Rauschenberg was the sole editor of this article. We need nuiance and context here. Please think carefully before you edit, so that we can get the most accurate and informative article. I think the question posed above is whether you have been canvassing Rauchenberg or "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )"? We already know that Rauchenberg enlisted his brother as a Wikipedia editor.158.59.27.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I apologize for not responding to each and everyone of the disruptive claims and proposals made in the past several weeks. Unfortunately, we are dealing with more User:Racepacket sockpuppets, who is continuing with a rather disturbing obsession with Dane Rauschenberg and this one article. It is rather pathetic that the newest sockpuppets in the family don't even bother to edit other articles to make it look like there might be a shred of legitimacy. It's all Rauschenberg attacks, all the time. Before any changes are made to a stable article, discuss them here and demonstrate that consensus supports the changes; any other changes have been removed and will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
              • So to summarize your position, an version of an article which you concocted with your meatpuppet is a "stable" article even if it does not comply with Wikipedia policies, standards, or even the truth, and the various people who have been trying to develop a good encyclopedia article here are all to be reverted as a challenge to your personal ownership. As I said above, if you can find some secondary sources about the awards, they can go back in, or if you can rewrite your discussion of particular marathons rather than using the strange paragraph written by Rauschenberg in violation of WP:COI, it can go back in, but until you address the consensus concerns, they should stay out. Please stop vandalizing this article and start working with the group. Please do not make further changes without obtaining consensus here first. Name calling and personal attacks are not a path to consensus. 158.59.91.249 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
                • You -- User:Racepacket and collected sockpuppets -- have a disturbing monomaniacal obsession with this one article. If you insist that this article "does not comply with Wikipedia policies, standards, or even the truth", you've done an exceedingly poor job of documenting it. If you want to make changes to this article, you will need to obtain consensus here from non-sockpuppets. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• The above comment is an excellent example of a WP:OWN violation. However, to get back to the point, 158.59.27.249 took out a paragraph originally written by Rauchenberg discussing some pre-2006 marathons and asked for an explanation of why they were still in the article. Alansohn replied with his "stepping stones" theory. He has been invited to rewrite the paragraph to reflect his stepping stones theory, but refuses to do so. Keeping the paragraph out until Alansohn rewrites it seems reasonable to me. Attempts to reinsert Rauchenberg's paragraph on pre-2006 marathons without any revisions is not the consensus of the discussion. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The above comment is a perfect example of how consensus could be reached if you and your fellow sockpuppets were not so dead set on disrupting the article and defaming Dane Rauschenberg. Propose an alternate paragraph; See if consensus is reached; if it is, put it in the article; if not, don't. That's how consensus works, especially when dealing with abusive sockpuppets. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If you looked at the consensus draft instead of reverting it, you will see that it contains an appropriate biography, instead of the strange paragraph authored by Rauchenberg. Please stop vandalizing the page by constantly reverting it to a version that many people have found objectionable. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem is that you have no credibility whatsoever. You have been caught red-handed, with your pants down as a sockpuppet of User:Racepacket. If you make a proposal here it can be reviewed by all legitimate editors (which excludes yourself) and considered as an option if consensus is reached for a change to the article as it currently stands. To call the actions of those trying to clean up your disgusting pattern of abuse and defamation "vandalism" is despicable. It really takes someone with spectacular disrespect of Wikipedia to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket and still maintain that you are a legitimate participant in this process. Learn to cooperate and follow Wikipedia rules or it's time to get rid of you, your fellow sockpuppets and your puppetmaster once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enough with the edit-warring

I have protected the article for a week due to edit-warring. Please use this time to discuss on this talk page what you want the article to and not to say. If when the block expires, edit-warring recommences, blocking may be considered, particularly if you have made no effort to engage your fellow editors on the talk page in the intervening time. Please note I may well have protected the page on The Wrong Version - if so, I am sorry, but I won't change it. Neıl ☎ 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion from 207.91.86.2

Picking up on Neıl invitation, I suggest that the post-block article contain the following elements:

[edit] Lead

• Only the birth year.
• Described as a middle of the pack long distance runner with the two refs to the Pittsburgh and Washington papers. No need to use either the word "amateur" or "professional" because they are meaningless in this context.
• Keep it short and leave out the charity controversy.

[edit] Biography

• Statement of education and fact that he does not practice as a lawyer. I don't know if he ever passed a bar exam, so it may not be accurate to call him a lawyer.
• A short statement about his running x marathons and that he works as a race organizer in Utah.
• No awards should be listed unless they can be documented by independent secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.91.86.2 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Running Resume

• It is the same in both versions - we can keep it.

[edit] 52 Marathon Project

• Should accurately reflect the sequence of events that a charity was only added several months into the planning.
• Should accurate reflect his statements about no "monetary" donations, but reflect his in-kind support of "race entry fee waivers, free meals from a local restaurant, free running shoes, free shuttle rides to and from the airport, and a free website.
• Should accurately reflect when the project ended and that only $32K was raised at that time. You may also add a sentence that an additional $x was collected since.
• Reflect that Rauchenberg solicited speaking engagements and contributed to "tell your story" blogs.
• Footnotes should be accurate and not contain the boosterism quotes.
• A brief comparison to the other projects that went on in 2006, "The project had to compete for public attention with similar efforts also conducted in 2006 where two people ran a marathon distance on 50 consecutive days in 50 different states, and a third person ran 51 marathons in the 50 different states and the District of Columbia."

[edit] See also

Both versions have the same one.

[edit] Alansohn's suggestion

The pattern of abuse of Wikipedia and defamation of the article's subject is truly despicable. That User:Racepacket can continue this hypocritical charade of sockpuppetry is appalling. That said, I will address the structure of the article, and why the article should stay largely as is.

[edit] Lead

• • Rauschenberg's claim to notability is based on his 52-marathon accomplishment.
  • He is an amateur runner (a statement that is properly sourced without contradiction), which enhances the accomplishment and needs to be included.
    • I disagree, because he is making his living from running. The problem is that the lead creates the dicotomy of "professional-guy-who-runs-52-marathons" vs. "amateur-guy-who-runs-52-marathons" -- a distinction without significance because nobody runs 52 marathons as a profession. Rauchenberg characterized Engle as a professional because he sells health supplements to earn a living while he races. How is that different from Rauchenberg organizing races and giving motivational speeches to earn a living while he races? 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You have already disagreed. You have made the rather idiotic analogy that you "could probably come up with a 1959 newspaper article calling Cassius Clay an amateur boxer, but that would not justify a 2008 Wikipedia article claiming that he was an amateur his entire life". The source provided states he's an amateur. He does not make his money by being paid to run. Again, all you have to do is find a source that states that he is a professional and I will back off. Until then all we have is your unsupported demands. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Just because Rauschenberg erroneously characterized Engle as a professional doesn't mean that we should include the same error in Wikipedia in characterizing Rauschenberg. He's not a professional runner. No one pays him to run races, and he's certainly not getting prize money. While he may be a professional race director and a professional motivational speaker and both of these are related to his running, that doesn't make him a professional runner. That said, I still think we should leave out professional/amateur status, because iit doesn't really add anything useful to the article.CruiserBob (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The characterization as a "middle of the pack" runner is false and misleading if it is the only description included (as User:Racepacket has been trying to impose on the article), but with the other material it may be appropriate if worded properly.
    • I have not been able to find any edits by that user in the article, so I don't follow you, but "middle of the pack" is a fair characterization of the Pittsburgh and Washington newspaper articles cited in the footnotes. What do you want instead "mediocre"?207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You are either completely and totally disingenuous or an out-and-out-liar, though clinical schizophrenia might also explain your insistence that you are actually two different people who share the same obsession with one -- and only one -- person, Dane Raushenberg. You may want to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket which confirmed that you are User:Racepacket. Your alter ago User:Xcstar was permanently blocked, but for reasons that are utterly unreasonable, you have been allowed to edit. As to your demands that he be characterized as "middle of the pack", I think it is a poor description unless balanced by all of the other descriptions of him as a runner. To only characterize him as "middle of the pack" is false, misleading and characteristic of your pattern of defamation and abuse. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The charitable component was directly relevant to the 52-marathon goal and mentioned extensively in almost all media references, and is directly relevant in the lead. The claim that there is a "charity controversy" is completely false, defamatory and typical of the biased POV User:Racepacket has tried to maliciously insert in the article.
    • Again, I can't find the edit to which you refer. Could you cite to a diff? The charity component was added months into the project. It did not start out as a fundraiser. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, you are User:Racepacket, User:Xcstar and User:Runreston; Read Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket an dWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd) if you have any confusion. The subject here is mentioning the charitable component in the lead. It does not relate to when it was added. That it did not start as a fundraiser is irrelevant in this portion of the article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biography

• • Details regarding his educational background belong in here.
  • NPR source describes him as a patent lawyer, which belongs in this paragraph.
    • This shows that the NPR transcript is just an off-the-cuff remark rather than fact-checked journalism. There is no record of Rauchenberg ever being admitted to the bar. At the very most, it would be correct to say that he was at one time a licensing agent.[4] Even the versions of this article written by Rauchenberg himself (of which there are many) do not describe him as a "lawyer."[5] Whenever anyone introduced him as a lawyer, he was careful to correct them. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The NPR item is a reliable and verifiable source. If in your professional opinion as a lawyer you believe that "Patent lawyer" is wrong and that "licensing agent" is more correct, provide a reliable and verifiable source to confirm it and you've got the change. Other than that, your word on this matter is as worthless than any other original research, (if not even more worthless, based on your track record). Alansohn (talk)
  • New career as race organizer / motivational speaker belongs here.
    • That is a biographical fact. Because it is not relevant to his notabilty, it does not belong in the lead. 207.91.86.2 (talk)
      • As his new career is direclty related to his 52-marathon accomplishment, it does belong in the lead. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  Paragraph 2

  • Details regarding his background as a runner are relevant to describing the steps that led up to his taking on the 52-marathon challenge.
    • I think that people have already observed that you are free to rewrite his biography to include something on this. However, using the strange paragraph written by Rauchenberg does not make sense and is confusing to the reader. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't give a crap who you claim wrote any part of this article, nor should anybody else. If you can challenge the material or the sources provided you might have an argument here. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Running Resume

• • A rare point of agreement.

[edit] One marathon per week in 2006

• • The title should accurately reflect the goal; calling it a "52 Marathon Project" misleads as to the nature of the endeavor.
  • As worded, the text already states that the charitable recipient was selected after the project was conceived, but before the first marathon in the sequence was run.
  • The only deadline in the project was related to running 52 marathons. User:Racepacket has repeatedly removed references to the total amount raised and inserted the amount raised as of December 2006. While it is of little relevance how much was raised as of December 31, 2006, the total amount raised is directly relevant, and any updated amounts should continue to be reflected.
    • I can't find the edit which you have reference. If you could provide the diff, it would be helpful. The consensus version has the sentence, "The 52nd and final race was run on December 30, 2006, with at least $32,000 raised by that time.[1]" with a reference to the Sciullo newspaper story. The story had only the $32K figure, which was the correct amount as of December 30, 2006. The use of any other amount in a sentence using the Sciullo story as its reference is bad scholarship. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Where is this BS from that your sockpuppet version is the "consensus version"? As stated above, you have repeatedly demanded that the only amount that can appear is the amount raised as of December 31, 2006, as if that date marks some sort of deadline. The only deadline that occured on or around that date relates to running marathons. You have repeatedly removed references to the total amount raised in a revolting example of bad faith, and repeatedly claimed that the charity was somehow shortchanged, did not make enough money to satisfy your expectations ans that there is some sort of "charity controversy" which is knowingly false. These allegationsa re false and defamatory. A sockpuppet complaining about "bad scholarship" is a classic. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The consensus version separates the Sciullo December 30 sentence from the total funds raised, which is stated at Ref #24. Please read the consensus version before you criticize it. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • You keep saying that word (consensus). But it's clear from Neıl ☎'s perception of a need for intervention that there never has been a 'consensus' version of the article. That's what Neıl ☎ is trying to create. Choosing a version you like and calling it a consensus version doesn't make it a consensus version.CruiserBob (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Given false and defamatory statements added repeatedly to the article that make the malicious claim that an inadequate amount of money was raised, the statement from the fundraising target is directly relevant.

• • • The above remark is the essence of the problem. Alansohn keeps on reverting and vandalizing the consensus version because of some past slights. Focus on the current version. Encyclopedias in general, including Wikipedia, should not be used for self-promotion or for trumpting fund raising causes. See the discussion under 14.2 Boosterism above.207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have reverted to (not from) the consensus version. The crux of the problem is an abusive case of sockpuppetry by User:Racepacket and his puppet alter ego User:207.91.86.2 insisting that this is something other than a personal battle with Dane Rauschenberg. You not only made the arfument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dane Rauschenberg that "This article about a runner is not notable and may be self promotion." and you even voted no less than three separate times using different IDs to make this case, which was soundly rejected and led to your conviction at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket. If you still believe that this article constitutes self-promotion in violation of Wikipedia policy, it's about time that you followed through with a second AfD. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As in-kind support is commonly offered, it should only be mentioned if it is immediately relevant and supported by reliable sources. The blog sources used to support some of the alleged contributions are unreliable and do not support the claims made. Details regarding other efforts to promote the fundraising effort (speaking engagements, blogs, "tell your story" entries, etc.) are already present in teh consensus version of the article.
    • Rauchenberg created a great deal of confusion by telling interviewers that he had sponsorship while he told other interviews he did not get monetary donations. The consensus version covers this with the sentences, "In mid-2005, Rauschenberg sought financial assistance for the project and obtained sponsorship in the form of race entry fee waivers, free meals from a local restaurant, free running shoes, free shuttle rides to and from the airport, and a free website.[11][12] Despite many requests, Rauschenberg reports that he did not obtain monetary donations to offset Fiddy2's costs, and estimated that total travel expenses related to the effort would be $20,000.[13]" 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Your multi-sockpuppet version includes not a single reliable or verifiable source. It seems that you insist on beleiving that sponsorship meens cash payemnts when your laundry list includes items worth no more than a few dozen dollars a pop. If you can find reliable and verifiable sources to support your allegations, please include them; Without these sources your claims are just bad faith synthesis. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The consensus version cites both the Washington Post and Rauchenberg's own statements on the coolrunning.com message board. See Refs #11 and 12. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As there was no Pre-planned marathon on Christmas weekend, the details regarding teh formation of the Drake Well Marathon are relevant here.
    • There was another marathon that weekend, so Wikipedia cannot state that Rauchenberg's Drake Well event was the only one. However, you are accepting Rachenberg's strained frame of reference. We have three marathoners who emphasized "runs in 50 different states" -- two traveled around to the 50 states in 50 consecutive days, and the third did 50+DC in the weekends. Instead of accepting the logistical challenge of 50 different states, Rauchenberg offers the unique challenge of Christmas weekend, which he solves by imposing on his mother and aunt to conduct an event at his hometown high school track. If this were a made-for-TV movie about the Christmas weekend marathon, it would be a situation comedy rather than a drama. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have added sources to support the claim that no other marathon had existed, including from Sports Illustrated. Other events appear to have been pushed off to that weekend but you have offered no source, reliable or otherwsie, to support your bitching and moaning about "imposing on his mother and aunt to conduct an event at his hometown high school track". What other people did is completely and utterly irrelevant, no matter how many times you try to push your personal bias and grudge against Rauschenberg. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • All Rauchenberg did was run around a high school track repeatedly on Christmas weekend to claim a "win" over his hand-picked competitors. His mother and aunt got stuck implementing the Drake Well Marathon, which is all the more reason to leave it out of the article. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • All Rauschenberg did was set up a sanctioned marathon when none existed, so that the 52nd could be completed; These facts are backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Your fantasy that this was a burden imposed on others is worthless POV and personal bias of the type that keeps on clouding whatever little judgment you have regarding this article. Find a source that supports your baseless claim or stop pushing your own personal distorted version.Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it was "Aunt Monica." Rauchenberg spared Wikipedia the details, but posted a lengthly account here I think it is best to leave the whole Drake Well Marathon affair out of the article. It is no more relevant than any of the other 51 marathons, and the logistical challenges associated with each. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. It provides helpful documentation of the fact that there was no marathon scheduled for Christmas weekend, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. Many people run marathons; very few people run 52 marthons, one per weekend; fewer people set up their own sanctioned marathons to complete their one-marathon-per-weekend-for-a-year goal. While your personal bias agianst Rauschenberg leads you to minimize the notability of the event, the media has decided that the fact that he needed to create the Drake Well Marathon and did so is notable, and that source is provided in the article. These details make this one marathon different from all the other 51. Kudos to Aunt Monica, Dane's mom and Coach Henderson for their contributions in making the Drake Well Marathin happen, but the only part of the story that bears mentioning is the one backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • There is no claim that Rauschenberg's accomplishment was unique, set a record, was the fastest, or any to any other comparable endeavor. The see also entry to Competing in a series of marathons covers the topic. The claim that there was this effort had to "compete for public attention with similar efforts" is pure POV and an unacceptable synthesis and has no place here.
    • Unlike Rauchenberg, we should avoid characterizing one set as better than the other, but we can place the Rauchenberg enterprise in the context of what else was going on in terms of 50+ marathon projects that year. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The see also provides more than ample context. Comparing Rauschenberg's accomplishments to others is complete original research in violation of Wikipedia policy, not that you have not ignored many other policies in this one article. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Noone except you wishes to compare Rauschenberg's accomplishments to the other 50+ marathon projects that year. The context should state that this was one of several, not that one was better than the other. It comes directly out of Rauschenberg's own words, "but for some reason 2006 seemed to be the year where the press finally started paying attention With Dean Karnazes and Sam Thompson doing their 50 states in 50 days"[6] 207.91.86.2 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
          • For months you have been trying to deprecate Rauschenberg by inserting all sorts of details "proving" that Rauschenberg was not notable because other people have run more marathons, run them faster, run them in different states, ran them backwards, etc., including a bad faith merge request demanding that this article be eliminated and that Rauschenberg deserves no more than a mention among multiple marathon runners. If you want to list Rauschenberg's accomplishment under Marathon#Multiple marathons, and create an implied comparison there, go ahead with my warmest wishes. The fact that others have undertaken projects that you have decided bear some relation to Rauschenberg's is your own personal synthesis and belongs nowehere in this article. The see also covers your latest temper-tantrum demands. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Awards are all appropriately sourced.
    • The key distinction is primary source vs. secondary source. I can provide a primary source that Alansohn won a penmanship award in 4th grade. However, no reliable secondary source, with suitable fact-checking, has reported that award, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. If you have a secondary source, an award can go in. (We need to avoid the problem that Rauchenberg attempted to lure us into when he added to the article that he was nominated for RRCA Runner of the Year.[7] As stated in WP:BLP, "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If I had an article that deemed me notable as a fourth grade penmapship champion, my award would be completely relevant. In this article, about these accomplishments, these awards are relevant, notable and reliably sourced. As stated in WP:BLP, "biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." I have no connection to the subject and wouldn't know him if I saw him; You know the article's subject, have stated that you feel he has threatened (or might threaten) you and have repeatedly pushed some sort of grudge against him here in this article in a rather disturning fashion. How you can call you or your edits "neutral" is baffling. Your involvement here is in complete violation of Wikipedia conflict of interest policy. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't understand the above paragraph, but it sounds like a serious matter that should be taken up with Wikipedia management. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Footnotes all contain the information necessary to document the claims made in the article, especially in the face of efforts by User:Racepacket and associated sockpuppets to insert false and defamatory information.

Especially in light of the previous pattern of abuse of Wikipedia process and refusal to respect consensus, this may well be a step in the right direction by User:Racepacket. However, all legitimate editors should be leery of the previously documented abuse, and any proposals need to be viewed in the light of the unfortunate monomaniacal obsession with this one article and the hateful and derogatory claims made in the hundreds of prior edits made to this article by User:Racepacket. Alansohn (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion from CruiserBob

I've been taking a bit of a wikibreak, so I missed the recent round of edit-warring. This is probably a good time to put in another viewpoint on what the article should look like.

[edit] Lead

• I don't think either 'amateur' or 'middle-of-the-pack' belong here. Pulling a paper encyclopedia off the shelf, none of the several runners whose biographies I looked at listed amateur/professional status. With regard to Alansohn's comment that his amateur status enhances the accomplishment, the purpose of the article is to be encyclopedic, not to either puff up or tamp down the accomplishment. Middle-of-the-pack is not a term I'd expect to see in an encyclopedia in any case - I could see mention later in the article that (this is off the cuff and it certainly isn't how it should be worded) he is not an elite runner & his marathon times aren't particularly noteworthy.
• His notability is due to the fact that he ran 52 marathons in a year to raise money for a charity - he wouldn't have gotten much press at all if he'd just been doing it for the sake of doing it (note, for example, the various other runners whose names have been mentioned as running 52 marathons in a year as part of the various AFDs in connection with this topic - as a runner, I hadn't heard of them or their feats while they were happening, but I heard about Rauschenberg). So the info about the charity certainly should be included along with the 52 marathons.
  • Isn't this further evidence of the amount of energy he put into self-promotion, including the creation of two separate Wikipedia articles about himself? 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Is this a further example of self-promotion along the lines of the idiotic claim that a picture of Rauschenberg in an article in The Washington Post was part of a test to get further promotional pieces published about hime in the future. These delusionary interpretations of the article don't belong here or anywhere. If you can't find a reliable and verifiable source to support the continued claim of self-promotion -- the same justification you used in nominating the article for deletion -- you can't use it in the article, as it is your own original "research", nor would it be proper to impose your bizarre conclusion of "self-promotion" as a justification for modifying the article in any way. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Do you want me to get started on his trying to sell the "book rights" to fiddy2? [[Image:Fiddy2Bookcover.jpg]] (catchy file name) I am sure he plans an entire chapter on your fine efforts. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, so he's self-promoting - so what? He wanted to raise a bunch of money for a charity - in order to do so, you've got to self-promote, because if he just says to himself "Dane, I'm gonna run 52 marathons in 2006 and give all the money I raise doing it to L'Arche" then L'Arche isn't going to get a dime, because no one's going to notice that Dane's run 52 marathons.CruiserBob (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• His current activities as a race director and motivational speaker, while not particularly notable, seem appropriate to include, since it's an article about a living person - otherwise, someone reading the article is left wondering 'OK, he ran 52 marathons in 2006 - it doesn't say anything else - did he die in 2007 or something?'
• Basically, I think the lead looks good, with the exception of the word amateur.

[edit] Biography

&

[edit] Running Resume

• These two should be the same section - his running resume is part of his biography. Since there's nothing running-related after 2006, ending the section with details of his 52-marathon project would provide a good transition to the next section.
• Education & previous employment (i.e. patent lawyer) should come first in the section, followed by the running info, since that way it'll read pretty much chronologically.

[edit] One marathon per week in 2006

• The first paragraph is a good intro to the topic.
• What kinds or how much support he got with regard to travel, entry fees, meals, etc. is pretty much irrelevant to the article, unless he was using donations to fund his races, whereas the money-raising goal and the totals that he raised certainly are. I disagree with 207.91.86.2 that the total as of his last race is the amount that should be listed, unless he had a self-imposed deadline as to when the money had to be raised by - the number listed should be the total amount that the project raised.
• It's certainly reasonable and appropriate to talk about his promotion efforts - if he hadn't done any promotion, he wouldn't have raised any money, so the promotion was an integral part of his project.
• While the awards listed are documented & verifiable, I don't think they're particularly relevant. The Washington Running Club award was from his local club. Regardless of the size/significance of his local club, it's still a local award to someone whose notability is more than local. It's not like an article about a university physicist who has authored a significant book in the field is going to mention "Dr. Soandso was awarded the Classroom Professor of the Year award by the University of Umptyscrunch." The website one is less clear-cut. While it's technically national coverage, as a runner, I wouldn't consider it a particularly notable site - if he were profiled in Runner's World as one of the 20 outstanding marathoners, that would be another story.
• I agree with Alansohn that the "compete for public attention with similar efforts" line is POV, unless there is a source which attributes fundraising problems to that cause.

Really, there's been an awful lot of time & energy wasted on this article - if the folks who are complaining about how much coverage Rauschenberg gets in Wikipedia compared to other 'more notable' runners had put half as much effort into adding to other articles, we'd be a lot better off (and I could have spent the last twenty minutes working on something else) CruiserBob (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions from Another Editor

Two points: (1) I had edited the article to remove the name and chapter of the charity. There is no reason to drag its good name into it. It is not relevant to the article. (2) I would also leave out the two awards. Good luck, Neil. 158.59.91.249 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• With regard to your point (1) - the name of the charity is relevant to the article. A reader will look at an article that says "Dane ran 52 marathons in a year to raise money for charity" and doesn't mention the charity and wonder "What charity was he raising money for." The point of Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopedia, and the answer to questions you would expect on a subject should be in the article - and I certainly expect that people reading the article would want to know what charity he was raising money for. CruiserBob (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

As there are two suggestions above, I'll try and go through both over the next day or two and see if I can come up with a draft both parties might be happy with, as there are many areas of agreement and some of the other differences appear to be little more than semantic. 207.91.86.2, Alan, are you both happy for me to do so? Once there's have a draft up, we can thrash out the details, and I'm happy to moderate, as it were. Neıl ☎ 08:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - I've reformatted the sectioning above to make it easier to compare and contrast the two suggestions. Neıl ☎ 08:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Neil. I hope my comments above help. I would try to remove the puffing and stuff that makes the article read like a solicitation for further donations to that particular charity. I appreciate the time you are taking. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably worth waiting on this one. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (3rd) is already in the works and the latest actions of User:Racepacket and his sockpuppet 207.91.86.2 have added ample evidence that User:158.59.27.249 and User:158.59.91.249 -- both of whom share Racepacket's singularly disturbing obsession with Dane Rauschenberg and only Dane Rauschenberg -- are also sockpuppets. I am still formatting the evidence of overlapping edits on other subjects, and expect to have the report filed and listed by tomorrow. Given the clear results of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd), this third strike will have User:Racepacket facing a long (if not permanent) block. As such, I welcome your efforts to find an alternative version that User:Racepacket will finally find acceptable, but it looks unlikely that he will be around for long to discuss the issue. Also consider that there are other editors with genuine track records of productive editing who have edited this article and should also be heard from; That I am the only editor who has dealt with these sockpuppets in the recent past does not limit the pool of editors to two. Alansohn (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• As you can see from the above, it time to move on the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone and everyone reading this article is invited to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn and add their comments. I would also suggest reviewing User:Racepacket's singular obsession with Rauschenberg at Special:Contributions/Xcstar, Special:Contributions/Runreston, Special:Contributions/158.59.27.249, Special:Contributions/158.59.91.249 and Special:Contributions/207.91.86.2, just to get a flavor of the level of abuse and disruption caused by User:Racepacket. The pattern of hundreds upon hundreds of edits devoted solely to one article is clear evidence of a rather disturbing obsession with Dane Rauschenberg. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neil, we await your fusion draft. Looking over all of this discussion page from the top, it is clear that whatever animosity or anger that may have slipped in is provoked by and directed toward Alansohn and not Rauchenberg himself. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neil, I too look forward to your draft. Anything that will unload the burden imposed on me, you and all of Wikipedia in dealing with this malicious individual, User:Racepacket and his family of sockpuppets, who has taken every step possible step to disrupt this article and violate Wikipedia policy, will be greatly appreciated. This shameless pattern of abuse of Wikipedia policy needs to be ended once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As noted in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn, he certainly has the need to get in the last word, doesn't he? 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Thank you to all above who contributed to the discussion. I have tried my best to create a version that takes the best of all the above suggestions, which you can see at Talk:Dane Rauschenberg/proposal. Honestly, I could see very little other than semantic differences between the versions. One was perhaps a little more critical than the other, but they both had their good and bad points. I have attempted to strike a balance. Note the following:

1. The birth date ought to be included in a biographical article of a public figure, if it can be referenced.
2. I have merged the various bits of biographical information (basically, everything not about running) into a section.
3. Per most other articles about non-professional athletes, the word amateur isn't included in the introduction.
4. As he ran to raise money for charity, it seems reasonable to include detail of the charity he ran for. I tried to tone down the promotional tone.
5. Both articles had differing sets of references. I have tried to merge the two.

The proposal version is not for editing - it is derivative of the original version and changes made to the proposal version would not be reflected in the history of the actual article (a violation of GFDL - all edits to Wikipedia must be attributed to the original editor, via the article history). I have protected it - I have also extended the protection on the article for an extra couple of days to make sure we get a consensus here rather than lapse back into edit warring. I would like to see opinions from 207.91.86.2 and Alansohn at the least (as the two disputing parties), but all other thoughts are welcome. If people indicate they are broadly happy, we can move the proposal into mainspace, and undo the protection. I do not want anyone to indicate you are happy, and then promptly resume edit-warring; please don't do that - thus far nobody has been blocked or in danger of being blocked, and I would like to keep it that way. Further grumping about what may or may not have been done/said with a previous account or on an RFC will also be unwelcome - let's try and focus discussion on this article alone, please?

Also, thank you all for bearing with me - I would have liked to have finished the proposal a few days ago, but I had a hectic weekend. Neıl ☎ 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response of 207.91.86.2

Neıl, I am most appreciative of the time that you have given to mediating this editorial dispute, and I believe the proposal makes major strides toward something everyone can live with. May I share the following concerns which may merit your further consideration?

• I too, appreciate the time and effort invested. The presence of an administrator combined with the clear prospect of User:Racepacket being blocked for further sockpuppetry, seems to have resulted in an exceedingly rare bit of rationality on Racepacket's part, including the removal of previous demands of describing him exclusively as a "middle of the pack runner", of using the Washington Post as a trial balloon for his publicity efforts and of there being a "charity controversy". There are still many behavioral problems here, but this mood change is greatly appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

• I thought that Wikipedia birthdate policy was to just use the year, unless it is someone with a published birth date. (We have an unusual case here because Rauschenberg posted his own birth date.)
  • No reason exists to exclude the date. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I am concerned that the statements about L'Arche Mobile and the total raised is repeated in both the lead and in the 52 marathon section.
  • I'm not sure what the "concern" is, as many statements will be repeated in the elad and later on. As long as it appears in one or the other, I have no objection. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I still think the quotes in the footnotes are a bit much. For example, the quoted sentence, "Rauschenberg became the first person to run one marathon every weekend in 2006." is misleading out of context. Richard Worley ran a marathon every weekend for 159 weekends from 1997 to 2000, so the selective quotes leave much to be explained to the reader.
  • The quotes support the claims made and clarify *what* statements are being referenced in the quotes. Given the article's past history (and Racepacket's past problems) with challenging clear statements in article, these quotes should remain. That they are not used in some other articles is irrelevant; the style preference should not be arbitrarily changed. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• My suggested substitute lead would be:

  '''Dane Rauschenberg''' (born [[1976]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[long-distance runner]] who ran 52 [[marathon]]s, one every weekend, throughout 2006.<ref name=TimesTribune/> He attempted to raise [[USD|$]]52,000 to benefit the [[Mobile, Alabama]] chapter of [[L'Arche]] Internationale, as part of an effort he called "'''Fiddy2''', with at least $43,000 raised to date.<ref name=TimesTribune>[http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18894024&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416049&rfi=6 "Marathon man completes 71st race"], ''[[The Times-Tribune (Scranton)]]'', [[October 8]], [[2007]]. Accessed [[January 7]], [[2008]].</ref><ref name=PittPost>Sciullo, Maria. [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06364/750070-140.stm "Running: Marathon of marathons about to end"], ''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]'', [[December 30]], [[2006]]. Accessed [[October 28]], [[2007]].</ref>

  • This proposed change is so utterly different from the previous crap Racepacket has inserted here that I will go along with it, despite minor quibbles. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Excellent - I would suggest we can consider the lead Y Done. Neıl ☎ 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Running 52 Marathons

• I would move this sentence from the lead to the 52-marathon section:

The 52nd and final race was run on [[December 30]], [[2006]], with $32,000 raised at that time.<ref name=PittPost>Sciullo, Maria. [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06364/750070-140.stm "Running: Marathon of marathons about to end"], ''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]'', [[December 30]], [[2006]]. Accessed [[October 28]], [[2007]].</ref>

This is an accurate summary of the Sciullo article which reported the $32K figure and did not report the $43K figure. Alansohn does not believe that Rauchenberg's stated goal was to collect $52K during 2006. However, he made many statements that his goal was to collect an average of $1K per week during 2006, hence the total raised during 2006 is relevant and should be included if the $43K is included.

• • I do believe that Rauscenberg aimed to raise $52,000. I do not believe that Rauschenberg set a deadline of December 31, 2006 to receive every penny of this money, mainly because no source exists to support the claim. After all of the crap by Racepacket claiming that there was a "charity controversy" and deleting references to the total amount collected, this version is a major step forward. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The source already quoted in the article (Aryanpur, Arianne. "Top This Resolution: A Marathon a Week - Area Lawyer's Quest Includes Fundraising.", The Washington Post, January 8, 2006) states "Rauschenberg's quest, which he dubbed Fiddy2, begins today. He plans to travel all over the country, including to Alaska and Hawaii, to run in 52 marathons. His goal is to finish the 26.2 miles each time in under four hours.... As he runs, Rauschenberg is raising money for L'Arche Mobile, which helps people with mental disabilities.... He hopes to raise $52,000." Neither this article, nor any other I have seen, makes a case that the $52,000 will be collected at an average rate of $1,000 per week or that every penny of the $52,000 will be collected before year-end 2006. While there is a source for the $32,000 near year-end, there seems to be no relevance to including this information, other than in the context of a "charity controversy". Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• If you include the Mobile chapter of L'Arche in the lead, leave it out of this section. However, I would vote to put it here and leave it out of the lead. I would not repeat the $52K goal, just use it once in the article.
  • No objection, as long as it is in one place or the other. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest deleting the sentence, "The local organization noted that they were 'grateful that Dane is willing to share [L'Arche's mission] with others' as part of his marathon effort.[3][16]" because every charity states that it is grateful someone is donating or raising funds. Again, we all want to avoid having the article read like a fund-raising brochure. Imagine how the Rockefeller family articles would read if we include a quote from each beneficiary expressing gratitude.
  • Racepacket has made repeated claims that the charity was disappointed by the poor results and that this created some controversy. An appropriate rebuttal needs to exist to respond to that libel. L'Arche only seems to have publicly thanked one person, a bit less than the Rockefeller family, a comparison that only adds weight to its inclusion. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I suggest deleting the quote from ref #16.
  • There is none. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • By the time you viewed it, it had become ref #15 due to some rearranging. Neıl ☎ 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I believe that an award should be supported by a secondary source if it is to be included in a Wikipedia biography. Every subject of an article has won a 4th grade penmanship award or a Cub Scout achievement badge. We don't include such items because they are have not been found to be sufficiently worthy to be noted by a secondary source. "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Here we have two websites Ref #27 and #28, not written by Rauchenberg, as the source of the two awards. We cannot use them.
  • The sources are reliable and are specifically relevant to the subject and his accomplishments. These were not awards for unrelated accomplishments (about penmanship awards for a runner) or for recognition that occurred in the distant past (anything that happened in fourth grade). They are specifically related to and in recognition of the achievements that make Rauschenberg notable. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External References

• I would delete, because the race no longer wishes to maintain the referenced page, and it was initiated by Rauchenberg and does not represent independent journalism:

  *[http://web.archive.org/web/20061210083349/http://www.littlerockmarathon.com/Upload/documents/Danes+story.pdf Little Rock Marathon Tribute to Rock Star Dane], from [[Internet Archive]] backup taken on [[December 10]], [[2006]]

  • The link is available and is relevant to the subject. That the race no longer maintains the page means nothing if it can be accessed in an alternative manner. See WP:SELFPUB for details on such sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Thanks for the suggestions. Updates made to the proposal as detailed:

Lead - birth year only now (not a big deal), L'Arche Mobile expunged from lead (now just says "for charity" to avoid repetition), quotes removed (agree they are superfluous - they aren't typically used if you can just click the URL to see them yourself - using a quote in a citation is really more if a book is being cited, or a translation from another language)

Running 52 marathons - move makes sense, and done. L'Arche Mobile remains (as it is now not in the lead as per above). Sentence about gratitude - agreed, unnecessary, removed. Quote removed. Awards are staying for now, I think they add something.

External refs - fine; it doesn't add much that isn't in other links anyway, so removed.

Still would like to see some other people's views. Neıl ☎ 12:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your continued efforts. There is still a long quote in Ref #15 that could be removed. Also, please consider stating the $32K collected as of Dec. 30 in the sentence which you moved from the lead. Otherwise, the amount collected could be moved to the end of the "Rauschenberg aimed to raise $52,000 and selected the Mobile, Alabama chapter of L'Arche as the recipient of his effort." sentence. Thanks, again. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • • The references seem to say $43k was collected by Dec 30th, and that figure's in the article, in the "Running 52 marathons in 2006" section. Neıl ☎ 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Neıl, with all due respect, please re-read the references on that sentence. Only $32K was collected by the end of 2006, and the $43K amount dates to late 2007, with very little collected after the second article. Please see my two recommended changes below. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm very concerned about the issue of raising "only $32K" being more POV pushing. Even with a reliable source, there is still no significance to the amount raised as of December 31, 2006. If he didn't run 52 marathons by that date he failed in his goal; If money was raised after that date, there is absolutely no issue. Calling it "only $32K" seems to be an attempt to minimize the amount and the accomplishment. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Perhaps Alansohn left the above comment without actual reading the two proposals[8][9] for the sentence -- neither used the phrase "only $32K". Both proposals are based on the consensus draft which uses the Sciullo article as the basis for the date of the last race and the amount raised by that date. Adding the 2007 Scranton article as a footnote and adding the $43K figure to what would otherwise be a simple sentence confuses the reader. For example, it confused Neil regarding the amount raised by the end of 2006. Noone is trying to knock Rauchenberg on his fundraising total -- I am not advocating a wikitable comparing his amount to that of Chuck Engle, Sam Thompson and Dean Karnazes. I would be fine with leaving all amounts out of the article, but if the $43K is included, the $32K should be as well. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
            • The concern I have is the bias behind the insertion of the $32,000 raised as of the end of 2006. No source says "only $32K" was raised; The only person who seems to include the word "only" and is User:Racepacket and associated sockpuppets, who has attempted to push his personal bias that raising "only" $32,000 represents some sort of degiciency or shortchanging on Rauschenberg's part. The total amount raised is the only number that has any significance whatsoever. The inclusion of the end-of-2006 figure is far more likely to confuse readers and adds nothing to the article. Alansohn (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There have been other responses, especially from User:CruiserBob. There is no need to negotiate exclusively with a sockpuppet. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Alan, I meant after my proposal - I note you have now responded, thank you, but at the time the IP was the only respondee. Neıl ☎ 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update on proposal

There are by my count four remaining issues where Alansohn and 207.91.86.2 differ - the inclusion of quotes, the inclusion of a webarchive link, the mention of awards, and L'Arche Mobile's being grateful for the donation. I think we have a consensus on the Lead section, and on where L'Arche is and is not mentioned, which is progress - thank you both.

• I am inclined to do the following:

1. Leave the quotes out (they can all be accessed by clicking on the links)
2. Include the webarchive link (using internet archive is acceptable for dead links - lots of websites periodically expunge old pages, it doesn't necessarily mean they no longer agree with the content)
3. Include the two awards (they are referenced, and we can let the reader determine how important or not important they are)
4. Leave out L'Arche Mobile's gratitude - I took a look at a number of other articles where people had done something for charity, and couldn't find any article that saw it necessary to mention the charity was grateful. I would leave this out. I also think having this in the article to counteract "Racepacket's libel" is not a great reason for inclusion.

• Whether by coincidence or by design, this would have 2 of the remaining 4 points of contention fit to Alansohn's preferred version, and 2 to 207.91.86.2's preferred version. Thoughts on the latest version of the proposal, please? (Talk:Dane Rauschenberg/proposal). Neıl ☎ 22:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Other than the removal of the word "amateur" form the lead and the rearranging of paragraphs, the current proposal is so much closer to the current (and my preferred) version that I cannot figure out why User:Racepacket devoted several hundred edits, almost six months of wasted time, at least a half-dozen sockpuppets, two blocks and a near permanent ban to get to this point. I have a few complaints, including the unjustifiable removal of quotations from references (this feature is built into the reference templates for exactly this purpose and its arbitrary removal based on preference is contrary to policy), which I can live with, as virtually every source and link remains from my preferred version of the article. As stated earlier, the text that reads "The Fiddy2 project had to compete for public attention with similar efforts also conducted in 2006, where two people ran a marathon distance on 50 consecutive days in 50 different states, and a third person ran 51 marathons in the 50 different states and the District of Columbia." is an unacceptable synthesis. All the sources do is support the fact that other people also ran marathons that same year, information available via the see also. There was a war in Iraq that competed for attention, the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series and Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving; All of those events competed far more aggressively for public attention with Rauschenberg's efforts. The world is big enough to accommodate hundreds of people who might have performed similar efforts. Absent a source describing some sort of attention battle between these other runners and Rauschenberg, this portion of the paragraph violates WP:OR and more importantly WP:SYNTH. It looks like the impending likelihood of a rather long block for a third conviction on sockpuppetry has had its desired effect in pushing User:Racepacket to finally end the demands to describe Rauschenberg as a middle of the pack publicity seeker who accepted undisclosed compensation, shortchanged a charity and forced his Aunt Monica to create a marathon for him when there were other supposed events already planned for the same Christmas weekend. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alan, thank you for agreeing to live with the quotations being removed - it's a minor point but it helps us get closer to a resolution. I've taken another look at the "competing for public attention" sentence. I think you are right in that it doesn't add much, and as there's no actualy source anywhere on such a media competition, it's WP:SYNTH - synthesizing unrelated sources to form your own conclusion. I would appreciate if you could constrain your comments to the content rather than asides about impending blocks, though. Thanks for the positive input. How is it looking now? Neıl ☎ 09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think that Neil may have misread the Sciullo article, which clearly reports $32K. I would suggest the following two changes to the 52-marathon section:

1. At the end of the first paragraph add a new sentence: "As of 2008, at least $43,000 was raised towards that goal.<ref name=TimesTribune>{{cite web|url=http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18894024&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416049&rfi=6|title=Marathon man completes 71st race|publisher=[[The Times-Tribune (Scranton)]]|date=2007-10-08|accessdate=2008-01-07}}</ref>"
2. Change the last sentence of the last paragraph to: "The 52nd and final race was run on [[December 30]], [[2006]], with $32,000 raised at that time.<ref name=PittPost>Sciullo, Maria. [http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06364/750070-140.stm "Running: Marathon of marathons about to end"], ''[[Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]'', [[December 30]], [[2006]]. Accessed [[October 28]], [[2007]].</ref>" The only citation for the sentence should be the Sciullo article. Thanks. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• If "the compete for public attention" paragraph is synthesis, how about "Fiddy2 was one of at least four charity fundraising projects in 2006 that involved a runner running 50 or more marathons during that year.<ref>http://starbulletin.com/2006/07/13/news/story07.html</ref><ref>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/ultraman.html</ref><ref>http://www.chuckengle.com/</ref>" It is a simple factual assertion that removes the implication that Fiddy2 was plowing new ground. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neil - you're doing a great job of building consensus - thanks for your effort. As far as your 'four remaining issues' I think you're right about 1, 2 & 4 - my only disagreement is with 'let the reader decide how important or not important they are' since including them gives the reader the impression that an editor has decided that they're important enough to merit inclusion. I'm on the fence about including the marathonguide.com award, but still think that a local award (like Washington Running Club's Runner of the Year) just doesn't have enough significance to put in the article.
• I think that if the article is going to mention a dollar amount in the lead paragraph, it should be the amount raised, since as editors we have the benefit of hindsight - it seems to me that the most important bit of information when raising money for a charity is how much money was raised. The converse of 'Wikepedia isn't a crystal ball' is that Wikipedia knows whether other people's crystal balls turned out to be working or not - rather than saying what his goal was, it makes more sense for the second sentence to say "He raised $43,000 (or whatever the current total is) for charity, as part of an effort he called "Fiddy2."" The interim total (as of the end of 2006), while a fact worthy of noting, is far less important than the total. Then in the paragraph about Fiddy2, we can provide more detail, stating (as it already does) "His goal was to raise $52K" and then mentioning that as of the end of 2006, he had raised $32K. One other thing before I go - on the Fiddy2 website, it mentions that Rauschenberg was included in the 2007 edition of Ripley's Believe it or Not. I don't have the time to verify this claim, but if it's true, I think it would be worth mentioning in the article. CruiserBob (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 14 Proposal

I have made a few changes, thanks all for the suggestions. Please take a look - I really think we're almost there. The Ripley's thing would indeed be worth including if verified. If anyone has access to a copy and could confirm the title/ISBN of the book, and that Rauschenberg is indeed in there, then it definitely should go in. Perhaps even a quote. No need to buy it, just find it in a book score or library and scribble it down. If I lived in the US, I'd do it myself - I've never seen the Ripley's books for sale in bookstores here in the UK. Neıl ☎ 12:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I continue to believe that the two awards do not meet the criteria for inclusion, because they are not supported by secondary sources. Marathonguide.com is just 4 people trying to build a readship by generating some content, and Rauchenberg's inclusion on their list does not represent independent journalism nor a well-recognized merit based awards system. I agree with CruiserBob regarding the Co-male runner of the year award.
• The paragraph on the origins of fiddy2 is still a bit muddled. May I possibly suggest:

  Rauschenberg decided to run a marathon each weekend throughout 2006, titling the 52-marathon effort "Fiddy2" in April 2005. Two months into his planning, Rauschenberg decided to add a charity fundraising component,<ref name=confess/> setting a $52,000 goal, and selected the [[Mobile, Alabama]] chapter of L'Arche as the recipient of his effort.<ref name=WPost/><ref>{{cite web|last=Boyle|first=Tom|url=http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060221&Category=THERALD&ArtNo=60221001&SectionCat=&Template=printart|publisher=The Titusville Herald|date=2006-02-21|accessdate=2007-12-31}}</ref>

  I personally do not think we need to drag the First Light Marathon or the Mobile chapter into this. A reader will ask why a man who lives in Washington DC with friends and family in Pennsylvania would seek to benefit the Mobile chapter of a charity instead of the Washington or Pennsylvania chapter. Although it probably worked against his fundraising, I don't want to get into the whole relationship with the First Light Marathon in the article.
• Ref #15 needs a template parameter fix.
• I had thought that we were going to drop the Little Rock reference rather than use archive.org.

Again, thank you Neil for your hard work. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• • The First Light Marathon benefits L'Arche Mobile and it was the source for his decision to select this charity as the beneficiary of his efforts. I'm not sure how explaining the genesis of his actions is not relevant. Including these details will answer the questions "why L'Arche Mobile, why not some better-known charity, and why Mobile of all places?" Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • 207, the reference ([10]) does not really back up this idea that the fundraising component was added after he began his planning. I have reordered the paragraph to read better without changing what it says, I hope - take a look. Alansohn made a good argument for retaining the Little Rock reference, and I don't see what harm retaining it adds. Ref#15 now fixed. As far as the awards go, I couldn't find anything that suggested Washington Running Club (let alone its awards) were notable, so have removed that one, but found something that suggested marathinguide.com was notable, so have referenced that. Thoughts on latest version, please? Neıl ☎ 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The <ref name=confess/> has the following quote from Rauchenberg: "Actually, I decided to run 52 marathons first and when I decided that I also wanted to do something for other people added L'Arche Mobile as the beneficiary of the endeavor a few months into the planning." This coincides with everyone's recollections: that Rauchenberg discussed his project with local runners and potential supporters for months before deciding to add a charitable component. The goerie cite is not proposed to support the proposition that it was a few months after starting the project that Rauchenberg decided to add a charity. See discussion above. The race organizer of the First Light Marathon is the leader of the Mobile chapter. I agree with Alansohn that he was the source of the idea to convert Fiddy2 into a charity fundraiser and suggested the Mobile chapter as the beneficiary. This is a part of the larger First Light Marathon "Run4Free" program, which offers a number of benefits (such as entry fee waivers, free air travel, and Carribean cruises) to people to raise specified amounts. Please reconsider my suggested paragraph above, because your formulation has the timing wrong. In April 2005, DR undertook Fiddy2 and started to research possible marathons and sponsors. In July or August 2005, he interacted with the First Light Marathon and started to consider adding a fund raising component. On Jan 15, 2006, he ran the First Light Marathon. The current paragraph has the charity component being added after 1/15/06. Again, I am shy about reopening the entire First Light Marathon controversy with Alansohn.
      • The fact that a columnist praises Marathonguide.com generally and its statistical report on marathons, does not establish that the Marathonguide.com's award to or ranking of DR is notable. When the Academy Awards are announced, the press covers them, and they are the acknowledged arbiter of excellence in motion pictures. If some blog or website were to publish a list of the top ten Wikipedia editors, and no secondary source covers that award, then the award is just the opinion of the four-person staff of the website or blog, and not the acknowledged arbiter of excellence in the field.
      • Similarly, Ripley's Believe It or Not is viewed by many as a catalog of the odd and flake-y, so it would not be considered to be an award. I would leave Ripley's out. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neil - I think it's great, with one (teeny tiny) exception. On what must by at least my fourth time reading it, I finally noticed that in the Running paragraph, the first word should be "Rauschenberg's".

207 - you seem to be getting wrapped around the axle about the word 'notable'. In Wikipedia terms, people are notable or not. Whether a fact is notable or not is irrelevant - what's important is whether or not a fact is worth including as something which would be relevant, interesting, or useful to an encyclopedia reader. The fact that a columnist praises Marathonguide.com makes a good prima facie case that the site is a respected source of information in the running community - so seeing the referenced article indicates to me that the award should be included. Similarly, although Ripley's may be viewed as a catalog of the odd and flaky, getting listed in it is certainly significant, and is certainly relevant, interesting or useful to an encyclopedia reader. CruiserBob (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• One columnist seeking to recap one article posted on marathonguide.com does not validate marathonguide.com's "2nd Annual MarathonGuide.com Outstanding USA Marathoners of the Year - 2006". By way of analogy, WP:PROF specifies, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." So, if an award or honor has to be notable for it to go into an article about an academic, it is just as logical that the award should be notable for a running article. There are groups in Washington DC and nationally which honor a Runner of the Year, or assemble a hall of fame. An article posted on marathonguide.com listing a number of people using the vague criteria, does not mean that the award is "well respected." There are no secondary sources discussing the awards.
  • 207 - did you even read what I wrote on 17 April about the word 'notable'?. WP:PROF and WP:N are guidelines for whether or not a PERSON should have a Wikipedia article about him. They don't give any guidance on what awards to include or not include in the article if the person is deemed notable enough to have an article. For an explanation, see Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content - the criteria for inclusion is verifiability and biographical relevance - if you can go to marathonguide.com's website & see it, it's verifiable - you don't need a secondary source to verify that an organization has issued an award if you can go to that organization's website and see it. If I'm putting in an article that Person X got a Nobel Prize, I'm going to cite the Nobel website as a source, not the Washington Post. You suggested that the award shouldn't be included because marathonguide.com is "just 4 people trying to build a readship by generating some content" - Neil found an article that indicated that not only have they managed to build readership, but that they have earned credibility in the running community. What more do you want? How much coverage do you think running awards get? Can you find a running award (not a race result) that has gotten other coverage? CruiserBob (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• We have not come to terms with how to handle the whole question of why a few months into the planning of Fiddy2, Rauchenberg decided to make an arrangement with the Mobile chapter of L'Arche. The following was in the last consensus version:

Rauchenberg negotiated to add a charitable component a few months later.<ref name=confess/> While searching for events, Rauschenberg contacted the Legg Mason First Light Marathon,<ref name=faq>[http://fiddy2.org/faq.html Frequently Asked Questions], Fiddy2. Accessed [[January 1]], [[2008]].</ref> which was conducted a particular charity. He negotiated to add that charity as the project's charitable beneficiary and pledge to raise $52,000, ($1,000 for each week of the project) in exchange for other assistance to fiddy2.<ref>http://www.firstlightmarathon.com/awards.html "Run 4 Free Program" Accessed 2002-02-24,</ref><ref>http://www.fiddy2.com/faq.html "Why not just give the money you spend on travel and marathons directly to L'Arche?<br> A: This is a multiple answer. First, I am new at fundraising. In my naiviety, I assumed that a majority of my costs would be covered by corporations wishing to help. As for individuals, I know we often need more than just the knowledge that 'it is for a good cause' to give up our hard-earned money. So, by doing something few, if any, have ever done, I thought I was giving enough of myself to make others desire to open their checkbook."</ref><ref name=NPR>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=One Marathon Per Week for a Whole Year. |url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6139116 |publisher=[[NPR]] |date=[[September 25]], [[2006]] |accessdate=2007-12-11 }}</ref><ref name=WPost>{{cite news |first=Arianne |last=Aryanpur |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Top This Resolution: A Marathon a Week - Area Lawyer's Quest Includes Fundraising. |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010400627.html |publisher=[[The Washington Post]] |date=[[January 8]], [[2006]] |accessdate=2007-12-12 }}</ref><ref name=SunGazette2007>Facinoli, Dave. [http://www.sungazette.net/articles/2007/01/08/arlington/sports/spt10.txt/ "Rauschenberg’s Milestone"], ''[[Williamsport Sun-Gazette]]'', [[January 8]], [[2007]]. Accessed [[December 10]], [[2007]].</ref><ref name=WPost/><ref>Boyle, Tom. [http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060221&Category=THERALD&ArtNo=60221001&SectionCat=&Template=printart "Weekend warrior: Titusville native Dane Rauschenberg has embarked on an odyssey of completing one marathon a week for ‘fiddy2’ straight weeks"], ''The Titusville Herald'', [[February 21]], [[2006]]. Accessed [[December 31]], [[2007]]. </ref>

207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I think we're starting to head backwards. We have discussed that the charity he chose is relevant to readers, and that it would be useful to explain how and why he came to choose this particular cause. The rewording proposed seems to be trying to dance around the subject. We have the sources to support the proposed text, there is a strong case for relevance, let's include the details. WP:PROF would be a relevant standard if he were a college professor. As a runner, CruiserBob has made a strong case for inclusion of the award cited. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)