Talk:Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wesley Mouse 23:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics → Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics – They are referred to as Independent Olympic Athletes at the official site, and it also closely matches the source for the IOC decision. As reliable sources show that these athletes will compete as Independent Olympic Athletes and not as any of the similar designations used in the past, the article should be moved according to WP:AT. The move should be implemented as soon as possible so the article is not incorrectly titled when the games begin. There are no sources available to people outside LOCOG for 2012 use of Independent Olympic Participants. 88.88.160.158 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comment. The phrase "There are no sources for 2012 use of Independent Olympic Participants" isn't exactly true, as there are some sources that reference IOPs as well as sources that references IOAs, hence why there had been several debates over the naming issue since April this year. I also explained that as a Games Maker, I was privy to internal documents which also listed three nations as IOPs, that number then reduced to 2 nations, still listed as IOPs on the official documents (London 2012 at the time hadn't published NOC details in full, as they were waiting for the final list before releasing the data on their website). Since Kuwait has been granted their NOC status back, a further change was made to the list of NOC, changing Netherlands Antilles from IOP to IOA code. This information held by LOCOG has since been released onto their website. By the time the 7-day discussion has lapsed for this RM, will know exactly whether its IOP or IOA - the way the IOC and LOCOG are constantly changing their minds over codes lately, anything could happen in the next 7 days.Wesley Mouse 23:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry, I meant sources available to the general public; I have clarified above. 88.88.160.158 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think this is likely to be the outcome but we should apply some caution; of the two links given one is from 2011 and has since been contradicted at times by other sources and the official site still includes Kuwait athletes despite indication that they may well compete under their own flag. The removal of Kuwait athletes may mean (and this is just a guess based on previous IOC policy with East Timor) that they compete under IOA but as Individual Olympic athletes - Basement12 (T.C) 23:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this LOCOG is aware that the designation currently only applies to one (former) NOC, furthermore the presence of Kuwaiti athletes could conceivably demonstrate that they would have used the same designation regardless of number of NOCs affected, and that the change for Kuwait came to close to publication. (Kuwait certainly were intended to compete as Independent Olympic Athletes, but the NOC has been reinstated.) Anyway this is the correct title as of today, and if it were to change it would be easy to remedy by a second move.88.88.160.158 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A new source using Independent Olympic Athlete (also confirming a South Sudanese athlete) has been published. I will ask an admin to close this discussion and move the article, as the title is a matter of fact, not debate. There has been no objections to the move, except to wait in case the IOC changes the designation. Furthermore, moving the article would improve the project, so WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE could apply if required. As the requested move was not properly registered due to a malfunctioning bot, waiting for a more proper close could mean that the article would be incorrectly titled during the Olympics. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The code is IOP and previous times this has been undertaken the code has been IOP so to match up the code with the article title the should Participants not Athletes. Sport and politics (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The code for this year is IOA, the same as Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics, but the title the athletes will compete under is new: Independent Olympic Athletes. Read the sources. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- this needs to be done as soon as possible. It's causing me and several other editors a fair bit of confusion over at the main article. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IOC has two NOC names reserved for these situations.Independent Participants was used for a NOC in a state of transition, suspension (Yugoslavia in 1992) or dissolution Netherlands Antilles,last year)).Individual Olympic Athletes is used for a country wich was recognized by the international community,but don´t has a National Olympic Committee,because was turning independent on middle of Olympic cycle.This is the same situation wich East Timor,was on 2000 Summer Games,IOC see this and give to they a special permission to compete as Individual Olympic Athletes.South Sudan,enter on this situation.The country is recognized by the UN, but they had time to form their National Committee on time for current Summer Olympics.Daniel Callegaro ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An understandables assumption, however if you read the sources you will see that they have created a new designation and re-using a country code this year. For easy comparison I will state my position in the same way you did:
The IOC has twice previously created a special country code and designation for athletes competing under the Olympic flag. For some reason, but the fact is easily verifiable, they have chosen to create a new designation for athletes competing under the Olympic flag this year. This designation is "Independent Olympic Athletes". Because of the initials they have chosen to re-use the IOA country code, which they no longer use in their own database as no athlete from East Timor won a medal. I saw mentioned above that there is some confusion on the main page. I have noticed that; for example the source for the Independent Olympic Participants is called "Independent Olympic Athletes". The longer we wait the more minor pages will have to be fixed following the inevitable move. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, we need a citation for all of the above. Olympic.org says that the South Sudanese athlete is an "Independent Olympic Athlete", while the three athletes from the Netherlands Antilles (and possibly also three Kuwaiti nationals -- there is some uncertainty about that part) are listed at the London 2012 site as "Independent Olympic Participants". Right now there are verifiably two distinct categories. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No: [1] [2] 85.167.109.186 (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Those six are actually listed as IOA's. The South Sudanese guy is still not mentioned at all on the London 2012 site, but he too is listed as an IOA at olympic.org. Give me a bit to read up on this some more and I'll return when I have more information. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no material which supports the contention that both IOA and IOP are in use as two distinct categories for the 2012 Summer Olympics. IOA appears to be the only non-NOC country code currently in use by the IOC. If Daniel or anyone else has a source which says otherwise, you are invited to bring it forward. Right now I'm changing the main article to comport with the available sources. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-merged the material from Independent Olympic Athlete at the 2012 Summer Olympics into this article. In addition, I am considering starting deletion procedures for that article. Would anyone object to that?Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my vote changed to Oppose, provided what Daniel says above is true, and that IOA is a separate category from IOP. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on what Daniel has said, I too oppose the page move. Wesley Mouse 03:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once more, since no sources support the idea that IOA and IOP are both in use. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: move at "Independent Olympic Athletes" as soon as possibile. Don't trust so much London2012.com athletes profiles: below every profile you can read "The athletes listed have not been confirmed, nor is the list inclusive of all participants. More athlete profiles may be added or removed at any time". We should consider what International Olympic Committee says:

  1) Athletes from Kuwait will participate under their country’s name and flag;

  2) Marathon runner Guor Marial (from South Sudan) to compete as an Independent Olympic Athlete (IOA)

  3) athletes from Netherlands Antilles will compete under the title Independent Olympic Athletes --93.34.4.39 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification I am clarifying my opposition. This requested move will bring confusion to the uninitiated reader. The uninitiated reader will see this as nothing more than a semantic POV fork. The uninitiated user will not understand the different names for Olympians competing under the Olympic flag. Changing the who article over one athlete is unnecessary POV forking. If there is going to be such a large volume of problems over the two names I propose a third name Independent Olympians that way the whole POV fork is avoided and all of the independent competitors are in the same place and both descriptions can be explained.--09:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs)

Our title has to reflect RS usage. Reliable sources are universally using the IOA distinction. No one is proposing changing anything over "one athlete". All the athletes are Independent Olympic Athletes, not Participants. There's no reason to think anyone will be confused. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the sources and Evanh's explanation there. The IOC hadn't made their mind up whether to use IOP or IOA for 2012. Because of this, Netherlands Antilles and other IOs assumed that IOA would be used as that was the code used last time a situation like this occurred (Sydney 2000). As a result of that, the media outlets also started to assume that IOA would be used, and published such facts. But their publications are incorrect, as the code IOP is on all the documents for delegations etc. LOCOG will be updating the site before the games begin to highlight IOP as the code for 2012. Wesley Mouse 09:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well that's... horrible and even more confusing. That being the case, everything I said above can be safely disregarded. I've been going on the information I have, which is from the London 2012 website and IOC press releases. If IOP is being used on official documents, though, I guess we can indeed assume that that's the "official" code. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If or when the internal documents are released or the official site changed we will have reliable sources supporting some use of IOP. We do NOT currently have any such sources, thus the current title is unverifiable. I am interested in your (pl.) reasons for opposing the claims of reliable sources. It is relatively easy to move an article for non-IPs and I would certainly not oppose a move based on fresh reliable sources, cf. my immediate acceptance of Kuwait not being IOAs after the IOC decision on this was published. (Not that I think it will come into effect, but in the event that fresh sources reveal use of both IOA and IOP in 2012 I would initially be Neutral to whether we should have one or two articles.) See also: WP:Published which is linked to early in WP:RS. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of reliable sources is one of the main ends of Wikipedia, the main aim though is to be an encyclopaedia which is reliable, neutral, accurate and most crucially accessible to all. There is no dispute from what I have read above that the Antilles are Independent Olympic Participants. The main problem starts when the man from South Sudan is trying to be dealt with as there appears to be a consensus that he is an Independent Olympic Athlete. If that is the case then two articles must be avoided to prevent an unnecessary dispersal of information and a lack of accessibility to the uninitiated and lay reader. If this is the case then either the long-standing title is retained or an all encompassing new title is agree to. For those reasons I cannot agree to change the article title just because one athlete from South Sudan has got into the Olympics, if he hadn't then this discussion would be fairly pointless as the long-standing consensus for just the Antilles was Independent Olympic Participants. Sport and politics (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in strong favour of Sport's suggestion of a neutral holding name of "Independent Olympians" as a title. Thus there would be one article which can then cover both IOA and IOPs, instead of having the confusion of wondering which is right/wrong. Plus having an article for IO allows us to explain both IOA and IOP. Wesley Mouse 10:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, due to the simple reason that we have the requested new title, which is backed by WP:RS. The recently suggested compromise title, while not a factual error like the current title, is lacking in consistency as it does not use the official designation. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing that reliable sources will be used in the article it will be an all encompassing article for all independent Olympians which have competed which I can see goes back to 1992. This would provide a sensible explanation of competing under the Olympic flag and would delete the need for debating the title as both Independent Participants and Independent Athletes would be in one place and prevent unnecessary forking and information dispersal. It is also not a factual error when it is dealing with all kinds of Olympic participation under the Olympic Flag. The official designations are under dispute and the article would address the differing official designations used. Having one article makes a lot more sense than debating a title over and over just because one guy from South Sudan is called something different from the Antilles people by the IOC. At the end of the day they will all be competing under the Olympic Flag. Sport and politics (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an article for all athletes ever having competed under the Olympic flag would be interesting and probably should be created, however that would be the counterpart to Nation at the Olympics style articles. What we are discussing here is most similar to a Nation at the xxxx Olympics article. I have argued that the proper place for this Nation at the xxxx Olympics article is Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics, citing important content guidelines etc. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree as using IOP or IOA has been shown to be controversial even with the producing of "reliable Sources" one editor has got in a complete flap over the whole thing. The most accessible thing to do is to use a compromise title which encompasses both and creates no controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how IOA can be seen as controversial as every single published reliable source uses it. I do not support the merge as that would mostly a list of results for athletes, dominated by the 58 competing in 1992. I do, however, support the creation of an article about the reasons why and the times when athletes have competed under the Olympic flag. While I am not offended, comments about specific editors are inadvisable. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One should also remember WP:AAGF. Although an editor has made reference to another editor's behaviour, the comment doesn't explicitly state who that editor is referring to, it is open to interpretation. As I see it in here, several editors have shown signs of getting into a "flap over the whole thing" so the comment could be aimed at any one of us. To assume it is aimed at yourself is just foolish behaviour. Wesley Mouse 19:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the comment came during a period where only two editors were particularly active it was hardly an unreasonable assumption. I would welcome your input on the issues; my behaviour should only be discussed if I were to break or come close to breaking a rule. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't exactly say that the assumption could be unreasonable really. When I read the comment, I thought it was referring to myself and not you - so like I said earlier, the way the comment is worded leaves it open to interpretation, and it would only take oneself to misinterpret its context as being aimed at oneself - thus being a foolish act. I wasn't saying you personally was behaving foolishly, its was just an euphemism. As for my input!? Have the multitude of my previous postings really gone unnoticed? I have posted a plethora of input into this debate - some are that long that it makes the novel War and Peace look like a newsletter. Wesley Mouse 19:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comments. Your Oppose is claimed to be based on a comment to which I have responded, you could consider the information there. Furthermore, I am interested in your response to my comment of 14:41 today. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm you're incorrect slightly there. My "oppose is claimed to be..." it isn't a claim if I have written oppose and signed it. And my oppose isn't based on a response of yours either. If you look at the time stamps, I cast my oppose !vote 3 hours before you responded to Daniel's comment. And your comment at 14:41 was addressed to another user, so I had no reason to respond to it at the time as I didn't feel it would be relevant enough. Wesley Mouse 19:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, bad writing. I meant your oppose was based on Daniel's comment, to which I have responded as I found it factually incorrect. Comment of 14:41 was intended for you (number of colons; is this incorrect?) primarily, but also others (therefore i added "(pl.)"). 85.167.109.186 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel's comment wasn't exactly factually incorrect. He did state a valid reason which he is perfectly allowed to do. Without people stating all sides of the debate, then how would be able to reach a decisive conclusion. The comment at 14:41 isn't clear that it was meant for me, as the comment immediately followed a post by Evan, which made it appear that you was talking to him. The inclusion of "(pl.)" wasn't clear to me that you were including others too. To be honest I was confused with that pl too, as I thought you was mentioning another IOC code, or saying 'please' for something. Not everyone is familiar with pl, so try and avoid SMS-speak if possible. I have no response to your comment at 14:41 though, as I would be basically repeating myself over and over again, and I'm not a parrot. I have already stated that IOP is now being used again, and that media outlets had all assumed IOA would be the code - and that assumption had lead to the media falsely publishing the wrong code. Like a user has suggested below though, it is going to be wise to wait and see so that we avoid having to move an article only to find that we moved it in error, and will have to wait another 7 days to go through RM discussions, which could then mean the article will be in an incorrect format during the live event. Wesley Mouse 20:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that we move the article and the IOC changes their mind, the article would presumably be moved back unopposed based on reliable sources and verifiability... I have not used media sources in a single argument in this discussion, because they often use poor sources. I have relied solely on published IOC and LOCOG material, whereas you rely on unpublished IOC and LOCOG material. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are focusing too much on one strand and that is reliable sources while they are essential, the founding purpose of Wikipedia is to be an accurate and accessible encyclopaedia for all. Whilst the use of IOA may be reliable it detracts from the accuracy by creating unnecessary disambiguation. It also detracts from the access to the lay person as this is a highly technical debate regarding "official" language. To improve the access and accuracy an encompassing and easily understood title is required. THe technical issues can be addressed in the article itself. Sport and politics (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article with the correct title "Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics" is neither more nor less accessible than an article with the incorrect title "Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics". The format of the title is based on precedence, i.e. all Nation at the xxxx Olympics articles and these two.85.167.109.186 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be correct but that doesn't make it the most accessible and easily understood title, meaning it may not be the right title for this article. Sport and politics (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the reason I argued that the suggested new title is equally accessible as the current title. A third option would require discussion at WT:OLYMPICS as it would not match the similar articles created by the project. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and See What name or names wind up being used officially. We should know by the end of the 7-day period. Then use that, as is precedent. Otherwise it will get confusing. If the article title is "Independent Olympic Participants ..." but they were called "Independent Olympic Athletes" (or some other similar situation), then it is confusing to the unfamiliar reader. Regardless, by the time the 7-day period is up, we will know what name is being used. It makes sense to use that in our article. RS is a non-issue in my opinion, because we will have the official name by the time this discussion is closed.

I would agree if the RSs were media sources, however the sources are from the IOC and LOCOG, thus we know the current official name. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the merge, there should be an article about competing under the Olympic flag, but we also need individual articles for the individual games. Otherwise, we will have a bunch of things together that have very little to do with eachother. Currently, we have a United States at the Olympic Games article and a United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics article. This should be treated the same way. Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the consensus at that discussion. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interim move, then Wait and See as nominator: Several editors have claimed that we will know in a few days. I agree with this, but I see clear problems with the current title as it violates WP:V, a core principle. Wesley Mouse is privy to internal documents using IOP and consider it likely that the IOC or LOCOG will shortly publish information using IOP. I consider it unlikely that the IOC or LOCOG will do this, as LOCOG has started using IOA after the dispute started. Nevertheless, there is a fear that a premature move would cause the article to be incorrectly titled during the Games. For these reasons I propose that the article is moved to the title currently supported by the sources given in the discussion above, but that the discussion remains officially open until the Opening Ceremony, to have a handy place to report new findings without having to open a new move request. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please rephrase or strikeout parts of the comments referencing myself; as the wording of it is coming across that you are accusing me of being a liar - the fact that you have stated I am privy to information and then say you think it is unlikely, is literally coming across as you accusing me of being a liar, and I am deeply offended by it. And remember too that there is no rush with Wikipedia, plus it isn't always about winning either. If people seem to be swaying to the wait and see idea, then we best do that. Plus this discussion has yet to complete the 7 day period, there is most certainly no clear snowball consensus in either direction here, so you shouldn't be trying to get this RM wrapped up before the 7 days are over. Wesley Mouse 21:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to rephrase the offensive part if I missed it. In my defence I clearly stated that you are privy to the information, not that you claim to be. I don't care about winning, I considered and consider it an obvious move based on the information published by today by the IOC and LOCOG. There are a lot of deadlines, in this case as long before the Games start as possible. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in same situation knowing information while news sources are inaccurate, as far as I know unless you have proper evidence nothing is stopping someone else from moving the page based on what sources are saying, ethic issues and all. "Red tape" from wikipedia does help stall the move. The draw for Judo (a sport which has one of the 4 athletes) will be on the 26th, whatever symbol they use should give us the answer. JoshMartini007 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call Josh, so we have at least a date to play with that should clear up this mess once and for all. Wesley Mouse 23:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with IP above right now, the verifiable sources show that it is indeed IOA. If Wesley Mouse's private sources are correct, we can move it back. But since WP:V is a core principle of Wikipedia, we must abide by it. I trust that your private documents are confidential, Wesley. That's fine. I don't expect you to impermissibly post them. But since they're private and confidential, they are unfortunately not verifiable sources. Therefore, we should move it in the interim to reflect what ALL the verifiable sources provided above say. If they turn out to be IOP, as Wesley claims, we can move it back. I'm not saying Wesley's wrong. But his private source is not verfiable, because private sources by their nature are not. I'm not saying you are lying, but I can't verify that you're not. And that's what counts here, as per WP:V, one of the core, integral policies of Wikipedia. If/when you are shown to be correct, we'll move it back. For now, I say speedy interim move, then wait and see. Smartyllama (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right just for the record, I have said loads of times that I am a Games Maker at London 2012. I have also always repeated myself that yes, I am privy to documents, but I also remind people that even though I have access to them I cannot post their url links here for 1) I would be breaching protocol; 2) the documents albeit legitimate may fall under as WP:NOR, and 3) even if the information was permitted to be released, as I am a volunteer I would breach possible WP:COI if I was to add the sources myself. So I find that someone to remind about WP:V even when I have always quoted WP:V to make me feel belittled. And as for "I'm not saying you are lying, but I can't verify that you're not"... either you are stating that I am lying or not, can't be both. I have stated for months that I am a Games Maker, and if you notice my edits on any London 2012 related article are very minimal and mainly correcting spelling/formatting etc, so that I avoid COI. The sponsors I added, but only because at the time the list was incomplete and I used a reliable and accessible source for that, and knew it wouldn't be breaching COI. Wesley Mouse 01:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on this, I'd like to give my input once more. To put it simply, all sources (unless I've missed something) say that the independent Olympians will be known this year as Independent Olympic Athletes (country code IOA). I have no way of knowing if what Daniel said (regarding IOA and IOP being in simultaneous use) is true, since he hasn't provided any sources that actually state that. Wesley says that documents are using IOP, and I'm inclined to believe him, for obvious reasons. That's not to say that his OR is acceptable for determining article content as far as WP:RS and WP:OR are concerned.

Taking the above into account, I have to conclude that absolutely nothing bad will happen if we leave the article where it is right now. But if we move to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics prematurely, and end up having to move back to this location, that's only going to confuse this whole mess even more. For now, I say leave it. Though I do not particularly object to the proposed "Independent Olympians" title, I'm not going to advocate for it, either, as I see no reason to do so. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reason for creation of subsection: I have read through the discussion so far, and have failed to spot a link to a policy or guideline supporting the current title. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't discuss in the subsection as that is not its purpose. It was mainly intended as a easy point of access for editors entering the debate wishing to assist establish consensus. Show me and them the strength of your arguments by adding them in the subsection and assume good faith with regards to my reasons for creating it. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding someone to assume good faith by wikilinking it is actually considered to be an act of bad faith - just stating the obvious, sorry! But that aside, if you think creating a subsection purely for adding links to sources/guidelines will help then that is your prerogative, even though I have doubts as to why editors participating in a free and open discussion would need to be advised to list policies under a separate section. Wesley Mouse 15:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point: You have done that earlier in the debate, but nevermind. Back to substance: By all means, keep citing policies and guidelines in the main discussion, but as I pointed out above I find the arguments in favour of the current title lacking in this regard. I take it you won't be adding your arguments, however I hope you'll reconsider as the section will have a very limited usefulness if it doesn't include both sides of the debate. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find earlier that I never reminding anyone to act in good faith. If you read the post again you will notice that I responded to an editor who was making false accusations/assumptions about another editor. I never told anyone they had to AGF, I merely pointed out that at times it is always best to AAGF. And again you have also assumed that I won't be taking part in something. You shouldn't assume what an editor will and won't be doing. If you think someone may or may not participate in a discussion, then it is best to keep those thoughts to one's self to avoid false assumptions. Another thing that appears to have been forgotten is that be constantly linking policies and guidelines may be deemed as manipulating Wikipedia to illustrate a point as well as possibly trying to game the system. People should be wary of not inadvertently wandering into those territories. I have always stated my point over and over, to the extent that I am now feeling like a performing parrot regurgitating the same old context. If something that another person writes isn't clear, then ask them to simplify it, not repeat the same question later on only to get the same answer again.

The whole point of this RM is to allow people to air their views and !vote on a move request, stating their reasons for or against it. My views have changed as this process has progressed further, and I am entitled to change my views. Nothing is binding! The process is advised to take 7-days to complete, unless a clear snowball consensus determines otherwise. As there are mixed opinions in regards to this matter, then no clear snowball consensus has been reached, and therefore it is more likely that the discussion will run the full 7-day course. by which time it will be known either way what the outcome should really be. Quite a few editors have stated above that as there are conflicting sources then it is best to wait and see what happens on the day of the opening ceremony, as it will be more clearer what the code will be. You have said it should be moved because sources state IOA, yet people have also stated there are other sources available to the public that show IOP - thus making things contradictory. I know that I have also informed of internal documents, but as you are fully aware I cannot provide links to those for several reasons, 1) you wouldn't be able to view the links without an password/log-in details; 2) the information is constantly changing hence why it hasn't been released into the public domain yet, 3) if I was to provide access to the internal documents I would be in breach of a protocol that I have signed, and 4) if access was granted then I would be in breach of COI if I published the sources personally. Now I cannot explain things any better than that, but just for those who have been stating that I may be lying about being a volunteer at the games, then this webpage should be good enough proof to put those false assertions to rest. Wesley Mouse 16:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided plenty of links regarding policies about conduct, none supporting your position in the discussion. No external links to sources available for everyone using IOP for 2012 has been given in the discussion. Your addition to the new section below does not match the title. While I do not own the section, the edit is either based on a misunderstanding of the desired purpose of the section, or a deliberate provocation. The claims of me wanting to win, disrupt Wikipedia or game the system are unsubstantiated, intentionally rude and untrue. I have never doubted your volunteering, I have merely pointed out that your internal documents are not acceptable as sources (on which there is no dispute). In a !vote, the reasons are more important than what side you support. I have presented the case for moving the article as clearly and strongly as I feel able to, basing my claims on official sources and the established policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. At the same time I have pointed out the lack of supporting material (at least presented here) for the oppose move option, and thus consider the reasons for opposing weak. Anyone can force this discussion the run its the full week before we do something, but I do not see why that should be a goal, hence my suggestion above to alleviate fears that we would have to discuss this again if IOC should change their mind. As I feel I can no longer strenghten my arguments further, and more importantly that the discussion has gone sour I will probably not be as active the next days, barring further updates at the official site. Other editors and the closing admin will make up their own mind about both the substance and conduct of the debate. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You have provided plenty of links regarding policies about conduct, none supporting your position in the discussion." - what? Everyone can see in my comments above that I have linked WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COI, WP:NOR - all core policies - none relating to conduct. By quoting COI, I was making everyone, including yourself aware of the situation and to further explain why I wouldn't be able to add content even if I was able to provide the sources. That is a perfectly reasonable safeguard action for myself to take. "No external links to sources available for everyone using IOP for 2012 has been given in the discussion." - links have been provided in previous discussion, but for whatever reasons you have either not viewed the sources or have chosen to ignored the sources because they contradict with your personal opinions on the matter. My addition to the new section does not match the title? Erm, the title is about policy and guidelines, so I have provided a link to an easy navigable template that list all the policies and guidelines for those who may wish to have an easier way of finding them. A helpful gesture for the unfamiliar is it not? "The claims of me wanting to win, disrupt Wikipedia or game the system are unsubstantiated, intentionally rude and untrue." - statements made based on an observation of how you have worded comments, each time someone posts an objection or a comment you do seem to repeat the same response rather than a newer one - which does make things look like trying to prove a point in my eyes - sorry if you disagree with my observation. "I have never doubted your volunteering, I have merely pointed out that your internal documents are not acceptable as sources (on which there is no dispute)." - please read what I said about that again, I never said you doubted my role, I provided proof for those who did/may have doubted. Yes, I agree you have presented your case for moving the article, and I cannot fault that. But then to restress the point whenever someone posts an objection or asks a comment is like trying to force feed personal opinions into someone's face. Let people make their own minds up based on what people have said, no need to be repeating ourselves 24/7 - as that isn't being productive nor is it going to convince things either way. I have actually witnessed this situation on another article once before, and a user just failed to get it and kept regurgitating the same replies over and over, and it did get people's backs up in all honesty. Whatever happened to just simply putting a case forward, and then just responding to the points made by others, rather than repeating the same points? Wesley Mouse 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can now confirm that the IOC and LOCOG have finally made their mind up on the code to be used for Independent Olympians. The details have just been released publicly here. The profile tab for that section was disabled to public access, and only officials/volunteers were able to view it. Now the general public can access it. Wesley Mouse 20:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we are moving the article. (I have accessed and linked to that page some time ago, by the way.) I think we talked a bit past each other at the end. Sorry about that. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you cannot have had access to that particular tab on the website, only officials and volunteers. There was a page for IOs but it only had the overview and athletes' tabs accessible for the general public. The profile tab which details the official NOC code was disabled. If you had accessed it then you would have had to hack into their system, and I highly doubt you would have the capability to hack - no offence. The link you just put above doesn't even show you have accessed any LOCOG page, it just shows that you said no official LOCOG source is available. And no, I don't think we talked past each other - I was making myself as clear as possible in explaining everything - and I found it frustrating that why voice wasn't being heard when I kept saying I have access to internal docs, and that a decision on which code to use had still not been made. The IOC wouldn't make a press release to to let the media know they were still debating over IOA and IOP codes. A lesson to learn here would be to step back sometimes and listen/read carefully what people are trying to say to you, not assume they are saying something different. Wesley Mouse 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed correct that I am completely incapable of hacking. I have double-checked that it is the correct diff, but since you missed it I'll copy-paste an earlier comment: Comment: According to this LOCOG is aware that the designation currently only applies to one (former) NOC, furthermore the presence of Kuwaiti athletes could conceivably demonstrate that they would have used the same designation regardless of number of NOCs affected, and that the change for Kuwait came to close to publication. (Kuwait certainly were intended to compete as Independent Olympic Athletes, but the NOC has been reinstated.) Anyway this is the correct title as of today, and if it were to change it would be easy to remedy by a second move.88.88.160.158 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC) 85.167.36.178 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it still doesn't settle every part of the issue here either. The profile tab only lists Netherlands Antilles as IOA. There is no mention of South Sudan being given the same IOA code. The athlete's tab is also out of date, as it still shows the 3 Kuwaiti athlete's which have yet to be transferred over to the correct page. I have been told that will be sorted out before the OC begins on Friday. Wesley Mouse 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)It sorts out the move part. For South Sudanese athlete. The Kuwaiti athletes are irrelevant to the move and should be discussed elsewhere. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the link you stated you provided, and I can confirm that you hadn't accessed the profile tab. http://www.london2012.com/athletes/country=independent-olympic-athletes/index.htmx notice the word "athletes" right after .com but before country. That shows you accessed the Athletes tab. The link I have just provided above http://www.london2012.com/country/independent-olympic-athletes/profile.html has the word "profile" at the end of the url, which shows its the newly visible profile tab. Wesley Mouse 21:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy move What do you mean we cannot have access to it? We clearly do have access to it. Are you mistaken, or are you attempting to own the article? I'm confused. Either way, clearly we do have access. Clearly it states the name is Individual Olympic Athletes. It admits the athletes listed are out of date, so there's no need to worry about that. We have a citation for the South Sudan person, and we have a citation saying Kuwait will compete under their own flag, so that's not an issue. However, that source clearly states, as do all the others, that the name will be Individual Olympic Athletes. So stop whining about how we're not allowed to use that as a source. Clearly, all sources say that the code is IOA. I don't know why you insist on prolonging this discussion, even while admitting that's the name, on the grounds that we "can't cite it". Smartyllama (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Independent Olympic Athletes. Either way, I easily had access to the Profile tab. Smartyllama (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just reread what Wesley Mouse said and struck out some parts of my comments. I thought he said "cannot have access" instead of "cannot have had access". Smartyllama (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Dear Smartyllama, I was about to complain and tell you to retract some comments there, and thanks to the edit conflict I now see that you had spotted your misinterpretation - so thank you for striking them out, much appreciated. As I said though, the only people who had access to it previously are those in the web department at LOCOG, the LOCOG officials and volunteers (who can view via our GM profiles). Clearly you do have access - now as it has been released publicly. I doubt how the IP managed to access and read the profile tab previously though, or if they actually accessed it at all and just guessed the URL (which is quite obvious as all the URLs are the same with exception to the country name). If the IP has accessed and read it before it had been made available for public viewing, then it is a serious issue which as a Games Maker I am suppose to report. Wesley Mouse 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm pleased that you have modified lying to mistaken, neither is true. Read the comment of 07:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC), for which I have provided a diff. The comment even matches text from the linked article which was true at the time but is now incorrect (i.e. that only athletes from the Netherlands Antilles are affected. Please retract incorrect claim that I had no access, also I believe I pressed the profile link, perhaps I accessed it shortly after its creation before they disabled the link. I could have tried the URL, but have no recollection of doing so. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Nor has my web browsers' auto completion of previously entered URLs, I accessed it by pressing the profile tab. 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to retract, as there isn't a claim of sorts, read my words again carefully. I cannot verify how you have access the page, hence why I listed all the possibilities, they are not accusations - please try not to get the two confused. And posting sarcastic remarks in your edit summary which is still visible, isn't the most civil of things to have taken. Oh and for the record, I did say "as a Games Maker I am suppose to report" - the word suppose should be a clue that I haven't indicated I would report. Wesley Mouse 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that I cannot have had access. This claim ought to be retracted. You have twice interpreted unfortunately worded comments as accusation that you are lying. When you acccused me I immediately rephrased what I presumed was the offending part and even gave you permission to fix it yourself if I missed it. I see this as a very similar situation. Also, why would you assume that the edit summary was sarcastic. The only reason I added that clarification on how I must have accessed it was to assist your report, so you can tell your superiors how, and based on my comment time approximately when I accessed it. Of course if you are not going to report it you don't need that information, but I believed you would. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK allow me to be more clear on what was said and how its interpretation, in case you misinterpreted it. As the page has only just been made publicly visible, then naturally I would question how someone would have been able to access the profile tab while it was disabled from public visibility. By stating I had a doubt, shows I was questioning how you could have gained access to a confidential document, as that is what it was a document, until it became released to the public for viewing. As I had no verification how you may have accessed it, I listed all the possible scenarios - and that is what they were 'scenarios' not 'claims/accusations'. For example I said it could have happened A, B, C, or D listing all the possibilities, but I never said you had done any of them - they were merely a list of the possible scenarios. If you did not understand it that way, then I apologise - but it doesn't mean I should retract scenarios which are part of my analysis of what may or may not have happened. Also I said I am suppose to report, that was to clear indicate to you that I am suppose to take a certain course of action cases like this, but as my previous comment also highlighted that I had no verification how you gained access to a confidential document, that I had no intentions to submit a report at this time. If you wish for me to have someone investigate how you access a confidential page, then please inform me and I can arrange for that to happen. Wesley Mouse 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, can either of you move the article or do we need an admin. 85.167.36.178 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• An admin as far as I know. Wesley Mouse 22:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can do that, right now I'm moving everything that links here to Independent Olympic Athletes. JoshMartini007 (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, the way you tried to do the page move was incorrect. The guidelines state a different method, and using "redirects" isn;t that method. A non-admin could have moved it, but now redirects had been used that method of non-admin is impossible to undertake now. It will require an admin to complete the move, as that is error message it came up with when I attempted the non-admin move. sorry. Wesley Mouse 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a noticeboard we can post this on to make it happen quicker? Perhaps just post a message on an admin's talk page? Smartyllama (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already a step ahead my friend. Just pinged an admin and explained the cock-up, hopefully it will get moved shortly. Wesley Mouse 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to assist any editors wanting to participate in the discussion who are discouraged by the wall of text, I will present my main argument citing policies and guidelines here:
The article should be moved according to WP:AT, based on what it says about WP:RS. The sources can be found in the discussion. The current title fails WP:V. Feel free to add yours below. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this new sub-section. It is pointless and irrelevant to the discussion, as everyone has the option to cite policies/guidelines when posting their comments - some of which have done exactly that above. Sectioning it separately is just meaningless, and comes across as if trying to prove a point. Remember that Wikipedia is not about winning it is about discussing matters to find a mutual consensus. Wesley Mouse 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should make life easier. A direct link to Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Saves people listing them all individually. Wesley Mouse 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.