Talk:Dina Belenkaya

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dina Belenkaya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edwininlondon (talk · contribs) 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sportsfan77777, I'm happy to review this. Thanks for bringing this here at GAN. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Prose

Prose meets the criteria. I made a few minor edits, which I assume are ok, but please revert if not. My only comments:

• Early on, she signed to stream for Chess.com --> this is a bit vague and unclear. When is this?
  • Specified "early April". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Belenkaya is a Master of Sports of Russia --> this is floating a bit. Better to make it part of the previous paragraph, I think
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Her current rating of 2264 is in the infobox but is not sourced
  • It's covered by the external link (which is a standard format). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Vadimovna is not sourced. I would recommend adding it to her name in the opening of "Early life and background"
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• language tag is missing for ref 1 and 26; check others
  • Added these, and a bunch of others. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Spotchecks: 1 2 3 4 5 46 48 58 ok
• 47 is ok except for I could not verify "Belenkaya was the 66th seed out of 103 competitors"
  • I couldn't find a better source. The seeding pairs the highest seed with the lowest seed, second-highest with second-lowest, etc. like typical brackets in sports. The seeds for the top half are given. Her match was so close to the middle match (64 vs. 65) that it's straightforward to count from there. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• 74 is her own website. Ref 46 verifies the fact and is a better source.
  • Replaced. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Otherwise all looks good for reliability and formatting.

Images

All good.

That's all I have. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC) @Sportsfan77777: Just pinging you in case you missed I finished my review. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Edwininlondon! I replied above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • All looks good. I believe all criteria have been met. Promoting. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reprimand by FIDE Ethics Commission

Belenkaya was reprimanded by the FIDE Ethics Commission, which found Respondents 1 thru 15 guilty of making "reckless and unjustified accusations of cheating," as stated on pages 31-32 of the cited source (Belenkaya is Respondent no. 5 as stated on page 5). The FIDE Ethics Commission imposed a sanction on Belenkaya in the form of a "reprimand (severe expression of disapproval and warning of consequences if conduct is repeated)" as stated on page 32 of the cited source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessxid (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Ironically, Dina is the one who was recoded cheating, in a widely disseminated video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGa_wGi0p6I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.253.76 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

RfC on Reprimand by FIDE Ethics Commission

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In this discussion, editors discussed if and to what extent this article should describe the reprimand which Belenkaya received from the FIDE Ethics Commission following her signing a letter that accused another chess player of cheating. Discussion took place surrounding the extent to which this was covered in reliable sources, with the discussion's creator providing two sources that mention Belenkaya's sanction other than the FIDE decision itself. The creator of the discussion sought to create a whole section about the sanction based upon these sources, but others were not persuaded, arguing either that this only warranted a single sentence or did not warrant a mention at all.

Some editors argued that this could be included in the form of a single sentence, with one (Starship.paint) providing an example of a sentence that could be inserted into the article. One editor (Sportsfan77777) argued for total exclusion of the sanction from the article, arguing that the sort of allegation made by Belenkaya and others that led to reprimands being handed out was not novel and that only those who were the main culprits in making the accusation should have this information included in our biographical entry about them; including information about the reprimand in this article, per that editor, may come off to readers as if the article subject had more particular responsibility for creating the cheating allegations than she actually did. This argument, however, does not appear to have persuaded any other participants; all others who commented on the content of the dispute argued for inclusion in some form after the two independent sources were provided by the RfC's creator.

As such, the majority of participants in the discussion argued in support for inclusion of a mention of the inclusion in some form, and a majority of participants also argued that this we should not have a standalone section regarding this reprimand. Consensus, however, is not the result of a vote, but rather is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, through that lens, this discussion resulted in a rough consensus against adding this information as a standalone section, but established a rough consensus in favor of including some mention of the sanction in a concise manner, such as in a single sentence. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Should this article have a section on Belenkaya's reprimand by the FIDE Ethics Commission? Chessxid (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• If you can find significant coverage, I don't see why you can't include it on the article. Not sure if just that source is enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Here's significant coverage: Ethics issues 3-month ban to Zhukova, Ethics Commission Proposes 3-Month Ban For Zhukova. What do you think of Sportsfan77777's statement in the edit history?: "Dina did not accuse anyone of cheating. That was Zhukova, and only Zhukova was sanctioned or punished for it. The other 14 who signed the letter in support were only warned. Per WP:UNDUE, if you think that was significant, you need to justify it on the talk page and obtain a WP:CONSENSUS." Chessxid (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do we have a consensus for me to add it to the article? Chessxid (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, a one-off mention is not significant coverage. The sources you found don't indicate any significance to anyone but Zhukova (and Sandu). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Ortizesp What is your opinion? Chessxid (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Ortizesp Chessxid (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Adding one sentence about it wouldn't hurt. A whole section would be too much IMO. Ortizesp (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ortizesp, these kinds of false cheating accusations aren't anything new. We would only mention it for the main accuser(s). Any mention of it here would imply Dina is one of the main accusers, which isn't what the investigation found. For Natalia Zhukova, it's fine to include it, since she was implicated as the one to have organized the whole thing. But for the other fourteen, it's harmful to include since no one else was identified as playing a significant role. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also noting that this editor is an WP:SPA whose only edits are to add that one dubious sentence about the Sandu case to a whole bunch of articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  The "whole bunch of articles" you refer to are simply the individual articles of each of the 15 players with existing articles who were sanctioned, except I did not add anything to the articles of the five players who only received a "warning (caution to avoid a repeat of the same conduct," which was the least severe penalty imposed. Belenkaya, on the other hand, received a "reprimand (severe expression of disapproval and warning of consequences if conduct is repeated)," along with nine other players, as stated in the cited sources. Chessxid (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Chessxid - I am an uninvolved editor who came upon this as a result of "Recent changes" patrol. I have no opinion or comment on the actual content, but I do have comment on the dispute itself. You have made a series of controversial changes, these were challenged, and you have come to the talk page to discuss. So far, so good. However, you have also continued to reinstate your preferred text before any kind of consensus to do so have been achieved, and in your latest edit summary had the audacity to accuse others of edit warring when it is you doing so. I suggest you self-revert until consensus is established. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Dorsetonian. I am glad you are weighing in. @Sportsfan77777 told me I needed to obtain consensus which I got from @Ortizesp. See above statement where he agreed with my change: "Adding one sentence about it wouldn't hurt." So I was bold and made the change. @Sportsfan77777 reverted my change without obtaining consensus. Isn't that edit warring? Thanks. Chessxid (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think you understand the process of obtaining consensus. As Sportsfan noted in their edit summary, now that you have started the request for comments you don't get to decide when the discussion ends or what it concluded - someone else will do that in due course, but from where I am sitting it has not yet reached anything like conclusion. This appears to be controversial content in a biography of a living person (several such, in fact) and the barrier for inclusion will be very high - Sportsfan has rightly and legitimately challenged it and you (not he) need to obtain consensus to proceed; your repeatedly reinstating the content in the meantime is the disruptive behaviour. I again suggest you self-revert, pending the outcome of the discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think we can have a sentence since she was found guilty of an offense. In 2017, Belenkaya received a reprimand from the FIDE Ethics commission for having made "reckless and unjustified accusations of cheating against WGM Mihaela Sandu". starship.paint (RUN) 13:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint, you think it's fair to make it sound like Dina was the one who started the cheating accusations when all she did was sign a letter that the person who actually started the cheating accusations asked her to sign? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Sportsfan77777: - "make it sound like Dina was the one who started" is your interpretation. When she signed the letter, she made reckless and unjustified accusations. That is the offense. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to Charlotte?

GM Finegold said on Dina's YT channel yesterday that she moved to Charlotte, N.C. Olaf Klischat (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)