Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dionyseus/Workshop

The includability of allegations

I realize this is getting deep into content; however these may still be useful principles to articulate, especially as it relates to biographies of living people.

Consider the following hierarchy of evidence.

1. Cheating allegations are proven by an investigation or investigative reporter.

2. Cheating allegations are widely reported in the press, and have consequences (such as, FIDE changes its rules for subsequent tournaments, or the alleged cheater is disinvited from his next match, or some opponents refuse to play him, etc.)

3. The allegations are widely reported in the mainstream press but have no observable repercussions.

4. The allegations are narrowly reported in the mainstream press; the reporter seeks comment from all sides.

5. The allegations are widely reported in specialized chess publications, with reporters seeking comment from all sides.

6. The allegations are discussed on chess blogs and personal web sites.

Ordinarily I would say allegations meeting 1 or 2 should be included, 3, 4 and 5 would be judgement calls, and 6 would be excluded. In this specific case, the allegations are mentioned by one columnist and hinted at by a second; while they are presumably under some constraints since they are edited and published in major newspapers, they are not reporters and there is no effort to present both sides of the story in typical journalistic fashion. Frankly I would rate the allegations in this case as falling somewhere between level 5 and 6. As Fred said (and I really like this) mere allegations ought not stand in for confirmation of an offense. Where the allegations have a demonstrable impact on a person's life or career they should certainly be inlcuded even if not proven, but it seems to me this a case of trying to ding someone's reputation on very thin grounds. Thatcher131 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But my original statement never claimed that Topalov DID cheat. It doesn't even imply that he cheated. In fact, I went out of my way to note that the accusations haven't been proven. And even then, Dionyseus unilaterally RV'ed the edit, in spite of the fact that I have 8-to-2 consensus supporting my edit (omitting Thatcher from the tally). And why is everyone ignoring the Chess Today excerpt [The official Chess Olympiad site]? If you want to disqualify some of my sources, fine. I think, however, that you ought to consider all of them, since the claim is that the allegations are widespread. Regardless of the questionability of particular sources, I think they constitute en masse compelling evidence to that end. I don't think it's entirely fair to point to one obscure Bulgarian site (although Topalov is Bulgarian), and assume all other sources are similar or irrelevant. NY Post, Chess Today, Mig Greengard, Chessbase, The Guardian- these are all more internationally known, and they are certainly at least as credible as the Bulgarian site.Danny Pi 07:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, while I am willing to accept whatever punishment the ArbCom finds fit for me, I don't feel like Dionyseus's bad behavior has received enough attention. I posted two large sections of evidence of poor conduct- and again, while you may consider some details refutable or debatable, I don't think the totality of offences taken en masse merits a mere warning, while I get banned for a week for mild (in my own judgment, of course) incivility. Again, you guys know how to do your job, and I'll trust you to it, but the fact that no one is even discussing the two large sections filled with bullet point examples makes me feel like my grievances aren't being considered. I realize I may be (and probably am) completely mistaken in this perception, but it's disquieting nonetheless. It's bitterly ironic that I'm the one that requested this ArbCom for Dionyseus's bad conduct, and it seems very much like you're punishing me for being curt to him. I'm not asking you to side with me (I doubt that would work, anyway). But the process would seem fairer to me if you'd be a bit more open about your thought process vis-a-vis decisionmaking (if only on the discussion page at least). Thanks!Danny Pi 07:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think writing that "Allegations of cheating against Topalov were widely reported even though nothing was ever proved" is in fact a way of saying "Topalov might be a cheater" and requires a higher standard of evidence. The currently existing evidence that I have seen would certainly support the following in an article about chess tournaments, "Following the 2005 FIDE tournament in Argentina, several chess writers commented on the ease with which a player could cheat in the modern age. The games could be fed into a computer, with the next move flashed to a confederate in the audience by text message, who could signal them to the player. The writers suggested FIDE should consider stronger security measures such as... To date, FIDE has responded by ..." and so on. (These comments, while they may have been prompted by the sudden improvement of a specific player, nevertheless are generic enough that reporting them in a tournament article does not tar a specific player; the comments are very relevant to the issue of how future tournaments might be conducted.) I think naming the player, though, or highlighting the allegation in the player's article, requires meeting a higher standard of proof. (I have not read "Chess Today" and seem to have missed it in the evidence section, it might or might not help the allegations reach the higher bar I'm talking about, but that's not an arbitration issue, its an editorial decision. The point of the arbitration is to get all parties to play nice and when there is an editorial decision to be made, to use the existing dispute resolution methods like peer review and article RFC.) Thatcher131 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)