Talk:Dane Rauschenberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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 --

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)

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)

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 {{spam}} 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Merger

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

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)