Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-15 Veselin Topalov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-04-15 Veselin Topalov 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Comments by others 1.3 Comments by Dionyseus 1.4 Comments by Ryan Delaney 1.5 Mediator response 1.6 Evidence 1.7 Compromise offers 1.8 Discussion 1.8.1 Dionyseus Response to Mediator Response 1.8.2 DannyPi Response to Mediator Response 2 Notes

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-04-15 Veselin Topalov

This case was closed on 20:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC) . -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Danny Pi 04:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Veselin Topalov

Who's involved?

User:Dionyseus, User:Ryan_Delaney, and myself.

What's going on?

After the FIDE chess championship 2005, there were widely reported [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. allegations of computer assisted cheating on the part of the winner, Veselin Topalov. However, certain fans of the chess player Topalov have deleted any reference to the cheating allegations. Furthermore, they have deleted any reference to the rift in the world chess championship. Vladimir Kramnik also has a claim to the title, and while the Kramnik article references this dispute (indeed, nearly half of the article is dedicated to that "controversy") all mention of controversy surrounding Topalov's title have been summarily deleted. I have attempted mediation previously (see: [6]). Other disputant (User:Dionyseus) did not respond to mediator's requests for comment. Instead he found a sympathetic admin, User:Ryan_Delaney, who has, rather than enforcing objectivity, made more egregious deletions. That admin has simultaneously issued editorial fiat against my case while claiming no special editorial privileges. Aside from sending mixed signals, I do not believe him to be impartial on the matter (as can be seen from his personal page). I would like to try, once again, to settle disputes about NPOV on the Topalov article with an objective mediator.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like the relevant factual information included in the article. The phrasing I would prefer may be found here: [[7]].

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

You may leave messages on my discussion page.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Yes, I would be willing to accept an assignment in a different case.

[edit] Comments by others

[edit] Comments by Dionyseus

Topalov won San Luis 2005 impressively just like he had done on several other major tournaments that year, however a nasty rumor appeared after the San Luis tournament claiming that he cheated by receiving signals from his manager. The person who began the rumor has not revealed himself. A few tabloid websites reported the rumor during the first month but it hasn't been heard again ever since. Take a look at the 5 tabloid links Daniel has provided, only 3 of them actually report the incident, one of them is completely blank, and the last one does not even mention that Topalov is the accused player. This cannot be possibly considered "widespread" as Daniel would like us to believe.

As for the Kramnik is the "true champion" controversy, I believe such controversies have no place in the article, nor does it belong in the Kramnik article. Actually if you look at the Kramnik talk page, you'll see that it was actually Daniel himself who intruduced the controversy sections in the Kramnik article. A quick look at the edit-history page reveals that Daniel first inserted the controversy section on December 25, 2005.

Recently I have received two emails from Daniel threatening my life. I asked him to apologise but he has refused to even admit that he sent them and he deleted my requests for his apology from his talk page. I can provide all necessary proof that Daniel sent me these two death threats. Even now, I would still accept an apology from him. Dionyseus 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Ryan Delaney

First off, administrators have no special authority in editorial disputes, as I noted explicitly several times. In this dispute I am no different from anyone else.

That said, I am not a particular fan of Veselin Topalov. I am an amateur chessplayer and as such have watched and studied his games with a healthy amount of respect and admiration for his obvious talent, but I have no opinion of him personally. I don't wish to color this dispute as divided between "Topalov fanboys" and "Topalov haters". That is simply not the situation. This is a dispute about undue weight.

It is true that briefly after San Luis there was a bit of a stink about a certain article published in regard to some cheating accusations. The article itself never cited its sources nor provided any evidence that he had in fact cheated. Since evidence-- or even the person making the accusations-- was never produced after some time, chess publications stopped carrying the story and the topic is literally a non-issue in the chess community. As Veselin Topalov is a living person and the sources cited are not reliable, because they make potentially defamatory accusations that are not substantiated, I suggest that Wikipedia should tread lightly when repeating them.

As for the world championship title dispute, I think that is adequately covered in other articles. The article on Vladimir Kramnik is already mostly about the controversy instead of Kramnik himself, which isn't a fate I would like Veselin Topalov to suffer.

--Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the response above and have only found one source that even mentions the allegations, and then only in passing. -- Joebeone (Talk) 01:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Unfortunately, this case has become quite heated. There is a lack of civility (WP:CIVIL) and many unnecessary personal attacks (WP:ATTACK).

This appears to be a question of sources. That is all facts on Wikipedia should be verifiable (WP:VERIFY) and published in reliable sources (WP:RS). While Danny Pi offers a number of links above that mention allegations of cheating in the 2005 tournament, only one of them^[1] could be seen to be reliable according to wikipedia guidelines and policy. However, that source doesn't specifically mention Topalov in connection to the discussion of cheating in that article so it is not a source for the claim in question.

I searched for other references to allegations of cheating using Lexis and was only able to fine one reference to this claim in a reliable source made in passing^[2]. It's important to note that it is best to source facts on Wikipedia using multiple independent sources rather than a single source.

So, as the person invited to provide a third opinion noted [8] the allegations of cheating might deserve a note in passing (just as the source I've mentioned noted the allegations in passing), especially if there are other reliable sources that mention the allegations. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

[edit] Compromise offers

Here is my compromise offer: It seems that all parties involved would be satisfied with a link in the External Links section of the Topalov article to the NY post article. I suggest the following wikitext (please don't change this wikitext if you have a different proposal; simply add a section under this and copy the wikitext or create your own in <nowiki> tags):

There were unsubstantiated allegations of computer assisted cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 made against Topalov, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that he cheated and FIDE has not initiated an investigation.<ref>"As for the cheating rumors, they come from an unidentified but world-class grandmaster who reportedly claimed that Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria received computer-assisted help from his seconds when he overwhelmed the opposition in the world chess federation championship in Argentina last month. There is no indication the federation is investigating their new champion." {{cite news | first=Andy | last=Soltis (Chess Grandmaster) | pages=101 | title=Everything Old is New Again | date=November 20, 2005 | publisher=New York Post | url= }}</ref>

This would look like this:

There were unsubstantiated allegations of computer assisted cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 made against Topalov, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that he cheated and FIDE has not initiated an investigation.^[3]

I accept this compromise offer. Dionyseus 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear; I accept this on the condition that it only appears in the "External links" section, not the article body. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am still awaiting a response from Danny Pi. best, -- Joebeone (Talk) 15:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I will close this case in 24 hours from now if Danny Pi doesn't object. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Case is now closed. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Dionyseus Response to Mediator Response

But the sport.guardian source does not even mention who the accused player is. This cheating allegation is a non-issue, and has no place in the Topalov article. As for the New York Post article (is there an online version of this article?) by GM Soltis, I wonder where he got his source from, does he even mention it, or is he simply spreading rumors or even making up stuff? I certainly do not agree that it should be mentioned in passing. Dionyseus 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You are correct that the Guardian article doesn't specifically mention Topalov in relation to cheating. I didn't notice that. That would remove one of the two sources I cited. I couldn't find a clean online version of the NY Post article... this is the best I could do [9].

Realize that this whole dispute is because one editor thinks that this does deserve passing mention in the article and another editor thinks that it does not. A compromise that I am proposing is that you mention "unfounded allegations" of cheating that never met the evidentiary burden required for the organization to initiate an investigation. Mentioning the Soltis article and quote would (I think) satisfy Danny Pi. However, I would also note that since we've only been able to find mention of the allegations in passing in one reasonably reliable source, leaving the allegations out might also be appropriate.

Unfortunately, all I can do is try and allow each of you to see each other's perspective. At some point, you'll have to agree to compromise or continue to have this dispute indefinitely. Is there a compromise that would be acceptable to you that would include a mention of allegations of cheating? -- Joebeone (Talk) 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could include an external link to the original article at the bottom, but leave it out of the article itself? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, could I get you to propose actual compromise wiki text in the compromise section of this page? That is, what would you add the the article here? Just a link in an "External Links" section with no explanatory text? Would the text that Danny has been trying to add (which he quotes below) be acceptable as added next to an external link? -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan's compromise offer is acceptable for me, but there's one big problem, the article that you are referring to does not even mention that Topalov is the accused player, and the other article is not even an online article. Dionyseus 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(I'm going to write without indenting so that you can easily distinguish the text of the mediator of this case.)

Note that sources do not necessarily have to be online, just accessible to other editors. (That last link points to a quote: "Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.") I can provide all parties with a PDF copy of this article from a research database. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Baburin link names Topalov [[10]] quite specifically. So I don't see what the problem is. Seeing as how GM Soltis is yet another very respected chess writer, I don't see why you'd impugne his honesty. And I remember reading specifically somewhere (chessbase?) that FIDE has begun an investigation, although there have admittedly been no updates since that article (Novemberish if memory serves... I'll try to find a link). Call me crazy, but I think when a contender for the championship accuses the winner of the championship of cheating, and it's subsequently reported in such a way that every chess fan knows about said accusations- it's worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. Even if the accusations were proven false, it remains a fact that the accusaion was made (and in such a case, refuted). I am, of course, amenable to passing mention of unsubstantiated accusation, since that's what I included in the article to begin with. The way the other disputants talk about it, you would think I included a whole chapter on that. I continue to believe that the phrase as originally included is clearly NPOV and informative to readers. Perhaps we should request more 3rd party opinions? Danny Pi 11:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Baburin link does not meet Wikipedia standards, and the Soltis article is offline. I personally don't remember FIDE starting any investigation, in fact I remember the opposite, but if you manage to find such a link let us know. The accusation is false, why even bother including it in the article? Famous people are falsely accused of cheating regularly, for example [11], but we don't bother recording false accusations, Wikipedia is about facts not rumors. Dionyseus 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know what would be a credible, reliable source in the Chess world. It would be best to be able to cite sources that do fact checking and such, of which I'm just not sure that the publication that Danny Pi is citing engages in. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DannyPi Response to Mediator Response

Thank you for taking the case Joebeone- we've been waiting for a mediator for awhile. To begin, the specific phrase in contention is, "Furthermore, allegations of computer assisted cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 have become widespread, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that Topalov cheated." I did, in fact, specifically state that no evidence had been produced. Furthermore, I never once asserted that Topalov DID in fact cheat. Rather, the only assertion I ever made was that he was accused of it.

It would be best to find even other sources that all parties can agree are reliable and credible since this is such a controversial issue. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound contentious, but Dionyseus has dismissed almost all the reputable sources of chess news that I can name, with the possible exception of Chess Life. I wouldn't want to dig through old issues hunting out any references to Topalov cheating, and Chess Life is not available online for searching (at least to my knowledge). Danny Pi 23:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I believe it's only the Nigel Short link fails to specifically name Topalov as the accused. The Bulgarian news site apparently archives its articles after a number of months, and unfortunately that link is consequently dead. However, my other sources are, I believe, reputable. I am, of course, open to debate on the matter, but Alexander Baburin's "Chess Today" is generally considered a foremost publication (would other disputants disagree?). Mig Greengard is also known and respected as a chess journalist, writing for Kasparov's site (before it went bankrupt) and chessbase. In short, I don't think the issue is the reliability of sources, although we can further discuss it if it is indeed contentious.

Can we agree that Chess Today is a credible, reliable source? Where's the link to the article about this issue in Chess Today? -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Chess Today is directly quoted on the link I gave. Unfortunately, Chess Today is available only to paying members, and I have only occasionally received complimentary copies. I don't know whether it's available online.Danny Pi 23:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, since the accuser is one of the participants in the tournament, it seems to me that such an accusation would carry at least SOME weight, and the allegation is certainly serious enough to warrant mention, regardless of whether you believe it or not. Once again, to reiterate, I am not asserting that Topalov cheated. I cannot possibly prove such a thing, it may in fact be unprovable, and to boot I rather doubt that he cheated myself. However, it is (IMHO) an indisputable fact that the accusation was made. And that's the only information I wish to include in the article.

Fourthly, I don't think it's fair of the other disputants to accuse me of unilaterally making changes or shunning consensus, since I have received support on the talk page from LinuxDude, 70.23.236.205, SWATJester ^Ready Aim, and perhaps somewhat noncommitally, User:Supinejsupine. Counting myself that's five people in favor of inclusion and only two against. Furthermore, I posted seeking third opinion (the only respondant of which supported including the phrase) and attempted mediation on the issue (Dionyseus did not respond to previous attempt at mediation). I'm not blaming him, as it is perhaps possible he wasn't aware of the mediation in spite of the fact that it was posted on his talk page. However, one can hardly claim that I have not *attempted* civilized discussion heretofore.

Fifthly, and lastly, Ryan Delaney posted the following to my talk page: "As for the cheating allegation, please do not re-insert it until discussions are resolved. The article is fine in its current form so inserting controversial material will only fan the flames of the dispute. Seek consensus agreement before adding new information. Also I strongly urge you not to use reverts as an editing tool. Bald reversion of another editor's edits is not allowed and you may be blocked under the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. Thanks." Dionyseus was not (at least not visible in his history) given a similar warning. Furthermore, this was posted immediately after the previous mediator told me I should go ahead and edit the article. And you can furthermore see in the Topalov edit history that Ryan Delaney stated, "Nobody talks about these allegations anymore... they arent 'widespread' by any means," after deleting any mention of cheating. This does not seem like an appeal for discussion. Rather, it seems to me like a command. And having professed to not appreciate "fanning the flames of dispute," it seems odd that he immediately followed up that edit by unilaterally (and certainly controversially) deleting any reference to Kramnik's Championship title, which, by any available measure, is more widely regarded as legitimate. I realize the purpose of mediation is compromise. And I realize that this is certainly not the place to debate which Championship title is more legitimate, or whether Ryan Delaney abused his position of authority, but I feel behooved to "straighten up the facts" on this matter. I feel like I've taken as many reasonable steps as I could possibly be expected to take short of conceding the point, and I don't want to be cast as the "bad guy" here. Danny Pi 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Danny, could I ask you to propose a compromise? That is, if you had to give a little, what would you be content with? Would it be too much to ask that the text you're suggesting stays out of the article until you can source it with standard Wikipedia sources that any Wikipedian (that is, not a chess fan) would be able to agree is credible? -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit difficult, since I really think I'm simply in the right here. It seems to me very cut and dry. The information is factually accurate, sourced, significant, and relevant. I can't see how this could possibly be construed as POV. On the other hand, I *can* see how Topalov fans would want to remove any mention of scandal surrounding that chess player, the deletion of which *is* POV. That said, I would be satisfied with the sentence in question added as a footnote. I would be willing to do a reasonable amount of additional research to provide more sources, however there isn't anything like "fact-checking" chess journalism (other than the analysis of games). There is, unfortunately, no equivalent of The New York Times in chess. And it goes without saying that the New York Times (or equivalent institution) hasn't reported on chess in any significant way since Bobby Fischer.Danny Pi 23:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I'm not 100% clear about what Ryan Delaney and Dionyseus are disputing. As recently as today (Apr. 26), Dionyseus wrote, "The accusation is false, why even bother including it in the article?" Apart from presuming the answer to a clearly unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable) question, it seems to me that Dionyseus wants to argue that Topalov did not, in fact, cheat. But this is arguing the straw man, because I have no intention of contending that Topalov *did* cheat. In fact, at no point have I ever argued that Topalov actually cheated. I don't think I could have been more clear about that. And a rigorous fact-checking journalistic source would not change much, in my opinion, since the statement in question only asserts that the cheating allegations were "widely reported," not that they were "widely reported by reputable mainstream news outlets (which don't report on chess, anyway)." So I guess, in the interest of clarifying the argument and ending this whole debacle as quickly as possible, what do you feel that my edit lacks? Objectivity? It is an objective fact that the allegations were made. Relevance? Significance? What is in contention here? Danny Pi 23:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding consistency, I would point out that the Kramnik article mentions Topalov's title. Prior to Kramnik and Topalov's ascension, the Kasparov article mentions Karpov's title. Karpov's article mentions Kasparov's post-FIDE title. Topalov's article should also mention that his "championship" is not universally acknowledged. Lance Armstrong's article contains a section on cheating allegations (which have also been unsubstantiated). The Kennedy article mentions the dubious election results from Chicago. The Tom Cruise article mentions rumors of his homosexuality. If you tell someone the content of a rumor, then that is indeed nothing more than gossip, and unworthy of inclusion in Wiki. If, on the other hand, you report that a rumor exists, you aren't spreading the rumor, you're contributing to knowledge about the context of a person's life and accomplishments. To mention the cheating allegations would, I think, be considerably more legitimate than Tom Cruise's denied homosexuality, so there is also consistency at stake. hereDanny Pi 23:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Side note: I haven't made any death threats. For some time, Dionyseus was plastering my talk page with requests for an apology. Surreal, to say the least. But I thought it would be worthwhile to mention that I have not done any such thing. This is not a debatable issue, but I thought you should hear it from me that I consider that accusation nothing short of silly. The email address he accused me of using is, in fact, not my email address to boot.Danny Pi 23:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It was you, it even said your name, and the emails were sent to me the very same day that you became angered at Ryan's decision to side against the inclusion of the allegation into the article. I can provide the IP address if requested, a moderator here can check and compare the IP address and confirm that it was you. Dionyseus 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to the timing of the emails, since I didn't send them. You did try to post my email address and IP number on my talk page, along with a considerable number of other slanderous accusations, which I have deleted. Neither the email address nor the IP address, which you claim to be mine are actually mine. I have been using one email address for the past three years, and it would be easy enough for anyone to verify both my IP and valid email address. At any rate, I don't expect this to be resolved here, and I only wanted to point out for the record that I thoroughly and unequivocally deny those accusations against me. My theory is that either Dionyseus is making the whole thing up, or that he forged the email to himself. If Dionyseus wishes to pursue the issue, I would suggest he find an admin to look into it (anyone except Mr. Delaney). I am entirely willing to cooperate with an investigation, but that issue is frankly just a distraction in this mediation. While I thought it worthwhile to mention that I deny his accusations against me, I think further discussion in this forum would be a distraction.Danny Pi 16:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

1. ^ The king and I | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited Sport
2. ^ "As for the cheating rumors, they come from an unidentified but world-class grandmaster who reportedly claimed that Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria received computer-assisted help from his seconds when he overwhelmed the opposition in the world chess federation championship in Argentina last month. There is no indication the federation is investigating their new champion." Soltis (Chess Grandmaster), Andy. "Everything Old is New Again", New York Post, November 20, 2005, pp. 101. 
3. ^ "As for the cheating rumors, they come from an unidentified but world-class grandmaster who reportedly claimed that Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria received computer-assisted help from his seconds when he overwhelmed the opposition in the world chess federation championship in Argentina last month. There is no indication the federation is investigating their new champion." Soltis (Chess Grandmaster), Andy. "Everything Old is New Again", New York Post, November 20, 2005, pp. 101.