Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Technologies in Track Cycling

Warning: Someone has attempted to hide this section after only 1 week of discussion, neither has the other editor who is dissatisfied with the premature closure of the dispute resolution been given a chance to respond yet (his board suggests no activity on Wikipedia since the 3rd November) please respect the view that others have lives outside Wikipedia and may take considerable time to respond! Please ensure it remains clearly visible for at least 3 months, and don't try to remove or hide the article or the talk page! May I also suggest that previously uninvolved editors who have no intention of factual input, refrain from this article. It is not Wikipedia policy to take account of views of those who don't attempt to justify them through rational argument! Milbourne and HiLo were not involved in the DRN and the latter one was asked to leave by the volunteer for disruptive behaviour.

I have applied to Dispute Resolution for this article, please keep the article its present location until the situation is resolved. --Andromedean (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please though do not assume that this means your versions is the "accepted" version of this article. Sport and politics (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus reached for replacement prose. Some remaining wording discussion to be referred back to article talkpage. Participants are commended for civil collaboration! Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Now it has been changed I will respect the decision of the DRN volunteer to include the current recently edited version as a starting point for further discussion, however please note that the DRN was closed prematurely without any agreement from showmebeef (or explicit agreement from myself). Therefore as the consensus interpretation doesn't conform to the evidence, showmebeef is entirely within his rights to change it to a version he believes is suitable. For the time being I will refrain from changing it in case anyone has any rational counterargument to the following points. If they don’t I will resume editing, and expect others to respect that decision.

I shall take each point in turn

I have just noticed this outrageous and deliberate attempt to completely change the meaning of a quote from this BBC article:

But is Boardman not concerned that this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."

has been written as

:When asked if the British team will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."

obviously all implication of technology has been removed. What greater evidence of deception by the editor do we need? It is just incredible this was allowed! --Andromedean (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

: All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use.

Strictly speaking Chris Boardman said this, so should we precede the statement with - Chris Boardman said that “All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use.” it also clarifies we are including further statements from the British side to provide relevent balance.

:Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that the spirit of equal footing had been broken.[136][137][138]

Conversely, we need to state or summarise what the regulation actually says “Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine" so this doesn’t just look like the speculative opinion of a blogger. This is one area I feel very strongly about which I never conceded in the DRN.

Bryan Coquard supported the British

This is rather misleading, he supported Chris Boardman’s view that technology was a factor:

"[T]he Australians didn't race cohesively."[139]

This is somewhat irrelevant to the article. The main issue (regarding suitability of quotes to avoid synthesis) should be if technological differences between the bikes/helmets/setup etc. used by the teams were likely to give any team an advantage, either absolutely or relatively. This is no place for speculative claims on the competence of teams. This effect may, or may not have, been additional to technology

:Home advantage was given as a possible reason for the British performance with Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott stating: "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home." [145]

Considerable synthesis is also used by including this quote, and should be removed for the same reason. Home advantage may or may not have been additional to technology, but it doesn’t affect any advantage that technology could have provided. However, there is no evidence that home advantage was significant to cycling relative performance between Beijing 2008 the UCI world cycling championships and in Manchester UK earlier in the year. It also distracts from the technology issue and provides unwarranted balance.

This quote should be replaced by

:"The British team stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’ in many areas, including training, preparation and home support in the case of the London Olympics"

this paragraph should be re-inserted for further clarification that technology advantage is an important factor in the British team’s strategy.

"British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery, and are secretive about the various technologies adapted from Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [138][139][140]''"--Andromedean (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no appetite for this to be discussed again, please let this go. This issue has been discussed to death. If you still have disagreements with this section of the article please take it to mediation. This issue has been discussed to death and re-opening this discussion is disruptive to the article and this talk page. For the record i disagree with every single point you have made above and this has been discussed to death already. Please take this to mediation if you wish to discuss this further. and there have been compromises on all sides, no side got everything they wanted please just accept one side got some of what it wanted, the other side got some of what it wanted. Agreement was reached leave it at that, or it will simply be seen as wholly unnecessary disruption. --Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You say Consensus has been reached. It is repeated false claims such as this which confirms my suspicions, since I know, you know, this isn't true and it makes me even more deeply unsatisfied with the outcome.

After a highly promising start to the DRN in which the volunteer confirmed what I had been tirelessly trying to point out to you for more than two months, it was inexplicably closed prematurely with a version quite at odds with two out of the four of us. It is true I suggested that a temporary 'intermediate' version chosen by the volunteer was placed on the Wikipedia site whilst we sorted the DRN (That's what I meant). I think he simply left 88*s choice which myself and Showmebeef had shown strong reservations against. I was just trying to be helpful.

You know full well that there are issues to tidy up. It remains my responsibility to ensure that the article conforms to the published facts without being misleading. In addition myself and 88* agreed that the UCI rule should be entered, and I doubt if showmebeef would disagree with that, so why start another edit war? --Andromedean (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have said previously if you wish to re-open and re-discuss this then please take it to mediation. Compromises were made on all sides and claims being made that there was "no consensus" is vague and being used misleadingly. There was very very strong consensus that the version before the DRN case was opened was not fit for purpose, was misleading, biased and a violation of BLP policies. This version is not perfect but drop the dead horse flogging as it is disruptive. The claim "It remains my responsibility to ensure that the article conforms to the published facts without being misleading." is simply not true and is making out as if you are the articles owner. You are also making treats which is uncivil such as "why start another edit war?". It also implies you are going to attempt to foiseter your unwanted unwarranted biased POV on this article by cherry-picking and synthesising sources, such as selectively quoting Bernard Cocquard, to make out he was holding the opposite opinion to what his actual opinion was. Sport and politics (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I was advised not to take it to Mediation before discussing it here first. However, I agree that progress is unlikely whilst you persist with your usual attitude. Now please show me, where did I personally agree to that second version in the DRN?

With regards to Showmebeef he made his view plain here on his talk page.Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Now there were only four of us, so that is two out of four. Looking more closely even you didn't agree as far as I can tell from the text! So which part of the concept of no consensus don't you understand? Even amadscientist who seemed to be misled about the consensus still suggested there were some remaining wording discussion to be referred back to article talkpage. so why are you refusing to be reasonable?--Andromedean (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to play so and so said this and that and the other etc. etc.This is not what Wikiepdia is for, it is not constructive and is not a discussion of anything except the ego of Andromodean. As has clearly been demonstrated by the volume of space taken up by this discussion, it is pointless to continue discussing it. It is time to disengage at let it go. Push your POV and bias somewhere else away from Wikipedia. If you are intent on continuing this discussion take it to mediation otherwise stop disrupting Wikipedia and this article. Sport and politics (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no wish to play games, and always try to stick to the hard facts, and am as sick to death as anyone though your behaviour. I have long realised that there is little point in negotiating with you, since you will happily argue 'black is white' all day either for partisan or ideological reasons, as indeed you have. I just needed to demonstrate to any unbiased person looking in how unreasonable you are before I attempt to change anything or go to the next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The above "scheming" demonstrates the lack of willingness to put Wikipedia first and yourself second. You do not try to stick to hard facts you cherry-pick and in some cases wholly misrepresent them. The line "I just needed to demonstrate to any unbiased person looking in how unreasonable you are before I attempt to change anything", Clearly demonstrates a lack of co-operation, bad faith and a degree of I own this article and I am going to go ahead and impose what I want on this article. Your claims of "any unbiased person" has been torn apart before as no one who disagrees with you is unbiased and only those who agree with you are unbiased from what you have previously demonstrated in past discussions. As I have said if you want to make changes go to mediation where this can be discussed otherwise disengage. There is also a thinly veiled threat of "or go to the next step", what ever that is meant to imply. Your conduct has been bought up by other users before and you have been warned that you are not a perfect editor as you like to make out. You are shooting yourself in the foot by continuing. I suggest you take this to mediation before you make wild and unwarranted changes to this article which have no backing other than from you and potentially one other user. The user below will clearly not be agreeing with your changes and I am highly unlikely to agree with them so you have again got your "no consensus" back. Sport and politics (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record I am 100% English ethnically, geographically and in any other respect, and have no special interest in cycling, France, the French or any other country. I even supported GB at the athletics stadium. I am also an Engineer a profession which would benefit from the use of Technology in Sport, although I have never been involved in the sporting sector. Therefore, my stance on Wikipedia in this article requires a great deal of sacrifice of partisanship on both counts. However, genuine independence of thought and action is surely something surely beyond your comprehension. It's a shame that yourself and some others on Wikipedia could not learn from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 08:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what ethnicity, geography or employment has to do with anything, unless you are claiming to be one of these "experts" who is being hounded out by the way Wikipedia operates. I am also not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here by saying you are "my stance on Wikipedia in this article requires a great deal of sacrifice of partisanship on both counts.". It appears as if you are trying make out what your doing is some how better than everyone else and that your contributions carry more weight. Both of which are a demonstration of Ownership. Also "genuine independence of thought and action" has clearly been demonstrated by the individuals telling you that your horse manure excuse for a "well written section backed up by facts" Is a load of misrepresentative ill-informed biased rubbish. People have stood up top you and torn your POV pushing synthesis to pieces. You can claim all you like about bias and lack of comprehension, but it does your case no good as it shows the lack of co-operation you are engaged in and a sheer in ability to remove you fixed view point which is total crap the TEAM GB are cheats. If you make that claim anywhere in the article or imply it i will report the page for BLP violations, as it is simply untrue. Compromises were made on all sides and now you want to roll them all back and re-insert all the irrelevant and misleading rubbish. As I have said if you want to genuinely make further changes go to mediation otherwise stop the bluster and stop disrupting Wikipedia. Your hope others will go away and you can sneak your changes in to the article are not going to happen. Sport and politics (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am of the view that weight should depend upon evidence only. I had provided vast quantities of evidence from many sources. You in contrast provided none at all until the DRN, and that snippet on home advantage was largely irrelevant, highly speculative, POV and Synthetic, to use your mantra. I also compromised substantially before entering the POV, removing vast amounts of background material embarrasing to your world view. Yourself in contrast compromised on nothing before the POV. So in addition to using speculative material to sway the view, this made it look as if you were compromising more than I was. I wonder if ever before on Wikipedia has so much been achieved with so little evidence?--Andromedean (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is time to end this discussion in this place, if you wish to continue it either take it to my talk page or go to mediation. This has degenerated in to the usual Andromedean and their POV is perfect and they are perfect and are correct in pushing their synthesis, bias and POV. Sport and politics (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend no further response. HiLo48 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I still believe the whole item should be removed from the article. Don't try to convince me otherwise. Enough words have been written and enough crap thrown already. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I support complete removal of the section. MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My personal POV is still to have this section removed from the article entirely. In the interests of Wikipeida i worked to improve the section and the consensus at the time was to retain the section in the article. If though consensus is changing to remove the section I fully support complete removal of the section. Sport and politics (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

i worked to improve the section This is nonsense S&P, you don't expect anyone to take that comment seriously! Your only aim has ever been to remove it by whatever means possible. In the absence of any coherent argument you has simply waded through the rule book and invented them. The only reason why you want it removed is for the same reason as the others which have suddenly jumped on here, because you don't like it for partisan/nationalistic reasons. Unfortunately bias is not a reason for removal, neither is it one to dilute the article with propaganda. You must all remember your responsibilities here, this is supposed to be a responsible encyclopaedia and there are plenty of people in favour of maintaining the article, or even strengthening it. I have yet to see anyone mount a viable argument, or even attempt one, against its inclusion, although it clearly has too much false balance and needs to be improved. --Andromedean (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Right Andromedean, you have just said about everyone who disagrees with you, "...you don't like it for partisan/nationalistic reasons". That is absolute nonsense, for which you have no justification, and it's completely unacceptable behaviour. Drop it now. Your case is lost. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note in case anyone is not aware, this article has been through a dispute resolution last month and we were requested to discuss the wording by the volunteer on the talk page, that is what I have attempted to do.--Andromedean (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That may very well be true, but there is now only one editor actively attempting to make any changes, no other user has expressed any support for any changes to be made to the version currently in place that was a result of the Dispute Resolution process. Continued attempts to keep on changing this section are highly disruptive and not in the best interests of Wikipeida. This issue is not going to be edited again as currently a consensus of editors do not want any changes made. If you wish to re-open this discussion please take it to mediation. Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote by Sport and Politics no other user has expressed any support for any changes to be made to the version currently in place that was a result of the Dispute Resolution process. This is the third time you have repeated this lie, despite me clearly showing otherwise, which only proves it is deliberate deception on your part. You must have a very low opinion of Wikipedia, and I'm afraid in view of the way your behaviour has been encouraged, I'm beginning to agree on that. --Andromedean (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

OK this is the last of it you are expressing continual bad faith in this whole process and need to stop or you will be stopped, this is not the first time you have been warned about your conduct, this issue is highly disruptive to Wikiepdia and this article. Also can you please provide an example in this current discussion initiated by you on this talk page of any one other than you Andromedean actually expressing any support for your changes on this page and not in your shopping for support on user talk pages. Sport and politics (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean - I detest reporting people here, for a number of reasons, but you are really pushing the limits. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

S&P That is another misleading statement, I was very careful not to ask anyone for support, but advice on how best to continue and only someone previously involved with the article. I will continue to do so, and try to ensure any misleading statements you state are refuted directly by them if necessary. HiLo48 are you not being investigated for attacking volunteers unfairly and swearing in the DRN? It places my truthful, verifiable statements such as accusing others of 'lying' into perspective. However, anyone resorting to lies, threats, and partisan behaviour without any explanation is very unsatisfactory.--Andromedean (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

One reason I detest reporting people is because the process allows every bigot to throw lies and garbage around without consequence. If you want to check what I have really done wrong, do your own investigations, but don't believe others' bullshit allegations. I have been known to swear when people annoy the crap out of me. I do highlight ignorant bigotry and outrageous, stupid generalisations, like yours. It upsets some of the bigots. If you want to experience the appalling processes here, just keep up the irrational abuse, and I will oblige. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Time to close this discussion this is a place for discussing changes to the article not to attack other editors. I will give it a few more hours to see if anybody has constructive comments to improve the artice, if not we can close this topic. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

|}