User:JzG/LA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This is a scratch pad for evidence collection only. If Socafan accepts consensus on the Armstrong article it will not be needed. I sincerely hope this will be the case. Please DO NOT move this into the RfC section, but do feel free to add to it or correct factual errors. Just zis Guy you know? 14:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Socafan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) engages in tendentious editing, incivility, fails to recognise the importance of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, is disruptive and edit-wars on his talk page to remove content which fails to support his view of events in contravention of WP:OWN.

This escalated extremely quickly, much more quickly than I was expecting. I am reasonably used to dealing with editors who are pushing a particular POV; in this case Socafan has not responded at all well to input from numerous editors saying that what he is doing is problematic, and detailing why. Note the creation of the Walsh and Ballenger articles, and the edit to the David Walsh disambig page, all of which are highly selective in what they say and suggestive of a particular agenda.

The locus of the dispute is Lance Armstrong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), specifically the handling of multiple unproven allegations of doping against Armstrong.

The fast pace of the dispute unfortunately meant that my usual tendency to leave long and detailed descriptions of the problem was forestalled. If anythign I am usually excessively detailed in my comments; this time there was an edit every couple of minutes. Of course, what I should have done was issue a pro-forma warning, note WP:BLP and if necessary block Socafan for long enough to ectually start some kind of dialogue. This was clearly not one of my better days.

There are three main threads to the problem with Socafan:

  • He introduces problematic content, often vaguely sourced or not sourced at all, places it out of context, includes guilt by association and inuendo and generally writes in a way that gives a stong impression that Armstrong is guilty of doping; Socafan gives undue weight to these allegations. Although there is a fair bit of circumstantial evidence there is no conclusive proof and Armstrong has been cleared by an official inquiry. Armstrong is a living individual (obviously) and at one point earlier this year he had no fewer than eleven lawsuits in process, mainly regarding allegations of doping in the print. Every case which has been sellted thus far has, according to news reports, been settled in his favour, most recently on 1 July a judgment was published in a case against the Sunday Times, which published an article by David Walsh in terms which made it appear that evidence presented Walsh's book L. A. Confidentiel represented proof of doping, rather than evidence to support the suspicion of doping. In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect. [1] This is directly relevant to Socafan's edits to the article.
  • He edit-wars over this content and refuses to acknowledge well-founded criticism of what he writes. He appears to believe that content should go into the article unless it can be proven inaccurate - this is the wrong way round, the burden of proof is on the person adding content. This is absolutely clear from WP:V and WP:BLP.
  • In refusing to acknowledge well-founded criticism he also fails to assume good faith, removing as "trolling" messages on his Talk page pointing out the problems with the content he adds. He repeatedly whitewashes his Talk page of comments, often removing replies so as to leave him with the last word. This is in contravention of WP:OWN, and that was pointed out at a very early stage. Debate is difficult if not impossible because every comment is perceived as an attack, and Socafan is clearly utterly convinced of the truth of what he writes.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Tendentious edits

June 13
  1. 16:38 Includes an editorialised version of the dispute between Simeoni and Armstrong, which fails to mention the fact that Simeoni's case against Armstrong for sporting fraud was dismissed. Presents as fact the theory that this was a response to a dispute re doping (no cited evidence that this was so). No charges of witness intimidation were brought, cases for defamation were dropped, no case was brought to court against Armstrong, and there is no verifiable evidence from reputable sources that the insinuations are accurate. This edit gives a picture which is very strongly at odds with the actual legal position. [2]
  2. 18:22 A "some have speculated" edit, unsourced. [3]
  3. 20:05 Guilt-by-association: The latter has been the case for many cyclists who were later confirmed to have used illegal drugs, such as the cyclists of the Festina scandal. No indication of whether any other innocent cyclists have also shown similar results. [4]
14 June
  1. 06:56 Strengthen the guilt-by-association: now reads The latter has been the case for many cyclists who were later confirmed to have used illegal drugs, such as the cyclists of the Festina scandal or those like David Millar who were members of the Cofidis team, in which Armstrong had also cycled (still uncited) [5]
  2. 10:14 Innuendo: removes but evidence was never produced to substantiate these claims, replaces with It was explained after the test with a medication. Even though the Tour de France reglementation is that such an event would lead to a penalty the test did not have any consequences for Armstrong. [6]
  3. 10:41 Includes Armstrong's former masseuse Emma O'Reilly made claims about his doping in a book L.A. Confidential - The Secrets of Lance Armstrong by Pierre Ballester and Jack Walsh, parts of which were published in the tabloid Express. Fails to mention that Walsh is a long-stganding Armstrong critic, fails to mention that Armstrong sued Walsh in France and the UK, fails to mention that one UK suit was settled in Armstrong's favour two weeks before this edit was made. [7]
  4. 10:58 Creates an article on Pierre Ballester which discusses only the book about Armstrong. Fails to mention the lawsuit. [8]
  5. 11:15 Innuendo and implication of guilt: Even though the Tour de France reglementation is that such an event would lead to a penalty the test did not have any consequences for Armstrong. and Urin samples taken on six different days of the 1999 Tour he won contained EPO (Erythropoetin), which at the time could not be detected. The anonymous samples that only had a code of numbers could be matched with Armstrong by L'Équipe after the medical director of UCI, Leon Schattenberg – assumably feinted – had handed out several of Armstrong's doping protocols. Neither the Institut Chatenay-Malabry, which had done the tests, nor the French minister of sports, Jean-François Lamour, wanted to confirm the match, but the director of the laboratory admitted that the evidence presented by L'Equipe was unequivocal. The A-sample of the time were destroyed, but the deep-frozen B-samples of Armstrong allegedly contain EPO. Edit summary starts "revert unexplained deletion of factual information." [9]
  6. 11:18 Adds more innuendo regarding comments by LeMond; these say more about LeMond than about Armstrong but are repeated as gospel and without fact-checking which reveals some additional history (e.g. LeMond's later apology for at least some of his remarks) [10]
  7. 11:59 Adds Stephen Swart from New Zealand who had been Armstrong's team mate with Motorola in 1994 and 1995 reported the use of EPO by Armstrong.; fails to mention that this was considered and rejected by an inquiry [11]
  8. 12:03 Guilt-by-association; creates article on David Walsh (sports reporter) which states: revealed that Lance Armstrong was treated by Michele Ferrari who was ruled guilty of sports abuse. Fails to mention that no guilt has attached to Armstrong, fails to mention that Armstrong severed all ties with Ferrari following Ferrari's conviction, fails to mention that Armsgtrong sued Walsh in England and France, fails to mention that Armstrong won the case against the Sunday Times, Walshh's newspaper, over Walsh's article on the book in the ST; provides no cited evidence that this was not previously known. [12]
  9. 12:06 Gross POV: in David Walsh disambig, states: "David Walsh, a British sports reporter who revealed that Lance Armstrong was treated by Michele Ferrari who was found guilty of sports abuse." [13]
  10. 14:37 Guilt-by-association: Armstrong had already been trained by controversial figures before. Four former athletes accused Michel Carmichael and Rene Wenzel‎ of the USAC team Armstrong had been a member of to have doped them. Members of the Cofidis team Armstrong had part of before admitted to have doped, e.g. his friend David Millar. This suggests that the POV section tag might have been an alert that Socafan was intending to add more biased material; I had not thoguht of it in those terms. [14]
  11. 14:40 WADA continues to see him as a proven drug abuser. So they might, but the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency says that WADA is not only wrong but seriously flawed. [15]

[edit] Edit war

  1. 10:44 I revert with edit summary No thanks. If you can state it neutrally, wiothout innuendo, and correctly spelled, then make a suggestion on Talk. Meanwhile the claims lack any credible basis and WP:NPOV/WP:BLP apply.
  2. 10:45 Within one minute (indicating that the linked policies were not checked), Socafan reverts to reinsert the unsourced statement re the reglementation requiring a ban; edit summary is please do not delete information). [16]
  3. 10:47 I post a comment at Socafan's Talk alerting him to the problems with his edits and requesting him to take them to Talk. [17]
  4. 10:50 Socafan deletes the comment from his Talk page in order to reply at my Talk professing that he does not understand the issue: I do not know what you are talking about. If you associate guilt, that is your judgment. I only provide information as an encyclopedia should do. If a book has been widely discussed it should be noted. I do not know anything about UCI's problems or not problems with banning riders, I only know what WADA claims. Please feel free to correct typos and please stop making ridiculous block threats. (delete) (reply).
  5. 11:09 I reply to Socafan on his Talk, pointing out that the "threat" was actually an administrative warning. [18]
  6. 11:14 Socafan replies indicating that he sees no problem with his edits and indicating that in his view the problem is just that I don't like the information he's adding [19]
  7. 11:19 I clarify on Socafan's Talk that the problem is with tone: I neither like it nor dislike it - I hold no particular brief for Armstrong (as is well enough known in the cycling newsgroups I frequent). I do, on the other hand, have a strong aversion to repeating as fact allegations which are discredited and have no evident factual basis; I am also strongly opposed to including guilt by association, especially where there is no data for how commmon a certain result might be among those who aren't taking drugs (if any such exist in the world of pro cycling, which frankly I doubt). As I said, take it to Talk. That's what the Talk pages are for. WP:BLP demands particular care where living individials are concerned. If you revert again you will be blocked. Take it to Talk. [20]
  8. 11:20 Socafan posts to Talk under the heading "deletions and intimidation" stating that "nothing was presented to cast any doubt on what I wrote"; this is rather missing the point since it is a reversal of the burden of proof. [21]
  9. 11:21 Socafan's reply on his Talk indicates that this may be a dialogue of the deaf: Your behaviour is unacceptable. If there is any problem you have to bring it up at talk. Deleting factual information without any explanation is a gross violation of wiki policy and you should get blocked yourself. No mention of having read WP:BLP, no questions regarding why it should be considered sensitive, no attempt to engage on Talk. [22]
  10. 11:26 My reply to Socafan points out WP:BLP again and notes that removal of questionable critical material, far from being problematic, is required by the post-Seigenthaler WP:BLP. [23]
  11. 12:12 I reverted some content with probably unnecessarily combative edit summary "what part of take it to talk were you having trouble understanding"; Socafan reverts [24]
  12. 12:14 I block Socafan for 15 minutes to cool off. By this time there has been a discussion on hius Talk page [25] which makes it clear that the problem is tone and balance. He has been made aware of the issues of WP:BLP.
  13. 14:24 User:Netscott changes section header to read Allegations have been made concerning Armstrong, but these have necver been proven and are stated by Armstrong and others to be the result of jealousy, bad journalism or anti-American feeling perhaps arising from the Iraq War [citation needed]. Armstrong has described himself as the most tested athlete in the world. UCI pursues an aggressive in and out of season doping test regime, and in his seven years of the Tour Armstrong never failed an official doping control; Socafan reverts with edit summary "remove innuendo and POV and false statement)". Note: Armstrong has never failed a doping control. [26]
  14. 14:25 Adds {{POV-section}} to the doping section, presumably because he does not feel it is adequately critical [27]
  15. I issue a WP:NPA warning after Socafan accuses me of trolling [28]
  16. Socafan rejects the possibility that there is any case to answer and orders me to keep off his talk page [29]
  17. 14:37 Re-inserts guilt-by-association Armstrong had already been trained by controversial figures... [30],
  18. 14:42 Re-inserts guilt-by-association [31]
  19. 14:51 Socafan removes an exchange with Netscott on his Talk page; Netscott has picked up on the theme of WP:BLP and the need for meticulous citation. Socafan's edit summary "What you think I make it seem is not to my interest, the problem here is your POV-pushing, I told you to keep off here" [32]
  20. 14:56 I block Socafan for 24 hours for tendentious editing
July 16
  1. 19:47 Reinserts POV-section tag into article despite the fact that it had been removed more than once, with reasons given [33]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:BLP
  2. WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV#Undue weight
  3. WP:V (and WP:RS guideline)
  4. WP:OWN
  5. WP:3RR#Reverting_potentially_libellous_material

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. See above for evidence of comments made on Talk by KzG and Netscott, deleted by Socafan.
  2. [34] shows some detailing of the problems with Socafan's edits.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}


Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/z/g/User%7EJzG_LA_4919.html"