Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Tape delay is a poor term

I think I know what's meant by the term, but it's not a very good one. There's a pretty good chance that no tape at all is involved. (It's going to be digital, on disk or some solid state device.) Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for Tape delay, which lists two meanings, neither of which is the one intended here. Only one of the four references listed actually mentions Tape delay, so why are we using that name for the issue? Why not just "Broadcast delay", or something similar? HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text changes to track cycling section

88 and Showmebeef have both confirmed they accept the last change. Please don't revert and misrepresent what was actually reported by the reputable media.

We can now move on to the remaining points, which should have been the case months ago.
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) 06:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death before and The two digit IP has not actually come out in favour of your version either Andromodean they have actually said: "Different word choices are not unreasonable and should be preferred when not quoting."
There are serious issues here of relevance of the Americas Cup or Formula one to this article, this is not a piece of journalism which has to maintain the interest of the reader. It is a fact based encyclopaedia article which has to portray neutral facts and not attempt to lead the reader in any particular direction. Including other sports is not relevant to this section if that road is gone down sources could be found for a whole litany of other uses of the same technology which is again not relevant to this section.
You claim in the "home advantage" section "Considerable synthesis is also used by including this quote" can you please provide evidence to back up this claim. The inclusion of home advantage is done to provide balance and it is a factual reflection of the sources in the same way that it is being claimed that "technology" is included. Removing "home advantage" is unjustified as the parts on "home advantage" are directly cited in the sources used for "home advantage" by the cyclist concerned.
The original wording on Brian Coquard was a BLP violation as it reversed his point of view, and including the direct quotes as they are now are wholly acceptable as that is what he said according to the source. It also shows the Australians in his opinion didn't race as well as they could have done, bringing in human error as a factor in to why the Australians lost and not just the technology of the GB Team as is its trying to be pushed all over this section.
I do not think you and I will ever agree on this “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". You are hell bent on having this included and there is no way you will get me to move an inch on this section. It is wholly out of place in this article and is already covered in other parts by having the line "All bicycles and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use". Including the section is padding, nothing more than POV padding. Why does it need saying what does it bring to the section. Nothing but an attempt to lead the reader to come a view hang on is what i am about to read about people breaking this rule. NO NO NO that cannot be allowed that is POV pushing. It must not be included in any format it is irrelevant padding. Also who the heck decides what the "spirit" is and can you please actually define the "spirit" can you also please provide sources which define this "spirit" also use of words such as "presupposes" what are they presupposing from? The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine according to who and what evidence do you have that this is not actually the case. with out saying well i have shown with my synthesised conclusions that it is so. At the end of the day a human still has to ride the bicycle and the claims being made are that anyone could have sat on certain bicycles an won the race which is unsupported by any of the sources and is just rubbish to even thinly imply.
These changes do not command "consensus" as claimed they are not neutral and the current wording while not perfect is far better than the proposed version. Sport and politics (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion options

Whilst I don't have any personal objection to a third opinion, it should be noted that you were happy to reject this possibility when I suggested it several months ago. Perhaps this may have been the reason?:

Third opinion If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. If more than two editors are involved, 3O is not appropriate

Well there are more than two editors now.

In addition you are suddenly happy to discuss this article. Honest discussion is good, but I hope if someone does jump on board they will take into consideration your earlier refusal to discuss this until made to do so.--Andromedean (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You and I are not going to agree its best to get outside input as early as possible to prevent protracted and long running unproductive discussion from occurring. Evidence you and i are not going to agree runs through the previous discussions on this issue. Currently (at the time of writing and at the time of filing the request) there are only two active editors involved. On your point i also hope they take into account your dismissal of all those who disagree with you as biased, partisan, nationalistic, having a conflict of interest, having an agenda and pushing propaganda as seen in the following sampling here, here, here. and here. There is also no "refusal to discuss" just an ignoring of your continuation of trying to push your version on to this article, ignoring someone is not the same as refusing to engage in constructive discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Andromedean - You say, rightly, "there are more than two editors now". I guess that makes me an unofficial third opinion, and I think the inclusion of anything about the UK bikes is wrong. Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Technologies in Track Cycling

Suggestions failed to gain consensus

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)

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 since the DRN was closed prematurely without any agreement from showmebeef (and explicit agreement from myself), he 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. Disgraceful. This statement:
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)
Hat off-topic discussion. Please focus on the editorial content of this article and quit commenting on each other. Dreadstar ☥ 02:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Other considerations are secondary. This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions, and editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.
So much for behaviour and guidelines. We can't expect others to treat guidelines seriously unless we all do. I will point these out on the talk page, however if the talk page is hidden again this will constitute proof of vandalism and I will expect administrators to support me in action action the offenders.--Andromedean (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean everything you have just said above is threatening and ownership behaviour. All of what you are saying is rubbish such as "hiding constituting vandalism". Administrators will also not blanket support you. There would also be unlikely to support you due to your continued bad faith on this issue demonstrated over a very prolonged period and the disruption to Wikiepdia that you are causing as being demonstrated again by the above posting. Also please remember that administrators are not a special type of editor, they are an editor just like ever one else is on Wikipedia and their comments carry no more or less weight then any others (including IP's). I would also like to point out your proposed changes fell incredibly incredibly short of coming anywhere near close to having a quality argument. It is "all I want this included because I like the POV I am pushing." Consensus here is very clear and that is not to make the changes to the article you are demanding. You even had this opinion given to you by a disinterested user when you went forum shopping on the NPOV noticeboard. Any more of this similar disruption and you will be reported for disruption, and you will be reported for at the very least a suggested topic ban from 2012 Olympics articles such as this one. Sport and politics (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Even more forum shopping. Amazing! HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
With regards to showmebeef's non-appearance here, I have no doubt this section is relevant and could be used if editors persist. HARASSMENT , "Various forms of harassment and related activities may have a goal to demotivate unwanted members of discussion so they would no longer participate. This form of harassment may be better prepared than something done by random troll for pure pleasure. It may be based on some tendentiously twisted "facts" and include multiple people cooperating. After unwanted opponents leave, it is possible to achieve the false consensus between remaining participants or simply make the wanted change assuming that "no objections is a consensus". Harassment is against Wikipedia policies and should be dealt with accordingly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 08:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
All comments made have been as a direct result of your Forum Shopping and your continuing to push your disruption on Wikipeida in relation to attempting to force through your changes to this article. This includes you adding misleading and one sided information to an RFC/U. No "harassment" has taken place. All that has occurred is the stopping of your forum shopping and disruption to Wikipeida and the use of this article to cause that disruption. "Harassment" would be following you to articles which are not related to your disruption and this section. Please stop also making unfounded accusations and disrupting Wikipeida. Please also do not claim a Wikipeida Policy is being violated and then link to a completely different and unrelated Wikipedia Essay. Sport and politics (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately the misquotes in this article completely subvert the meaning of the original source so these have to be corrected or else the encyclopaedia may be challenged by the original editor or a sports organisation. If either of you attempt to edit these back, this will be used as further proof of your bad faith editing, and determination to disrupt the encyclopaedia. --Andromedean (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yawn HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss this rationally without sensationalist language such as "subvert" and threats and intimidation being made such as "If either of you attempt to edit these back, this will be used as further proof of your bad faith editing, and determination to disrupt". if this is continued with there will be disengagement on the talk page and you will simply be reported for your conduct. Please bring the issue you have to this talk page without reverting and re reverting, that is edit warring initiated by yourself in full knowledge that the edits being made are likely to be challenged and will need discussing. Please start a new section and discuss this rationally, without demands that what you want must be included and genuine discussion can take place as opposed to the normality which has ensued of demands being made by yourself that your POV and version be the only allowable version. This article is also about a lot more than just the track cycling section but the level of time consumed by discussing this section would suggest otherwise. Sport and politics (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs proper referencing

"....Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that the spirit of equal footing had been broken.....". None of the three references for that statement can be accessed. Moriori (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed one. The other two work for me. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

I have closed the current discussion with this summary and have fully protected this article for three months. If you folks can agree a compromise of any sort before then, please request an edit here. I will watch this page closely and will not hesitate to block for increasing periods of time if the tendentious behaviour seen here erupts again. I'm sorry if this seems draconian but cannot think of a more effective way of encouraging you folks to co-operate despite yourselves. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

NBC Questionable Editing

During the 2012 games, NBC edited primetime content of the team gymnastics competition. In an effort to I guess manufacture drama with the US team's hopes, they edited and then played the tape delayed content out of order. The US's medal hopes were far more secure than was indicated by the video and they completely ignored the great competition for 3rd place between China and Germany? (I forget the countries exactly) But NBC accomplished this by showing a rotation out of order, you can even see in the background the 'future' results. Just wanted to be clear that NBC does more than just tape delay and censor odd bits of content, they are interested in manufacturing a story not told by the competition, ashamedly for ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.31.20.227 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics/Archive_5&oldid=1168970632"