Talk:Isa Kasimi

It's over

After the proven cheating I'd say it's over. The article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.252.147 (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia articles are based on notability, and being caught cheating doesn't make him less notable as a person. If anything, the opposite - it's probably the most noteworthy thing he's ever done. Robofish (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding mention of cheating in article lead

Hello VDF40747, this is TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername, a fellow editor here with an overly long username. Sorry.

I've noticed that you have been repeatedly removing various mentions of Igors Rausis' cheating in an FIDE tournament from either the article lead or the main body for several months now (ever since August 23rd, 2019). If you wouldn't mind, can you explain your rationale behind why you don't believe the article should mention that fact? Personally, I believe that the main thing that Rausis is notable for is his cheating and subsequent six-year ban (and as I previously stated, the vast majority of articles about Rausis on Google News, for instance, are solely about his cheating and subsequent ban), and that therefore an event with such high coverage needs to be included to avoid writing non-neutrally about the subject--but I'd also like to hear your opinion so that we might come to a consensus.

(I'm primarily asking this because this debate has essentially turned into a slow motion edit war, which is almost never desirable by Wikipedia's standards.)

(Also, this seems to be the only article you have edited; just so you know, it's completely fine to branch out and edit other articles besides this one alone. Of course, your editing patterns are up to you.) TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername 08:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Rating information

I restored the rating information that was anonymously removed in this edit. Since this might be controversial, I want to explain in detail.

• The decision of the FIDE Ethics Commission (which is cited in the article) expressly states: "The ETH decision does not affect Mr Rausis’ rating". I cannot find any subsequent decision to the contrary.
• The FIDE site is unfortunately rather badly organized and often has inconsistent information in different places, and this is a case in point:
  • Rausis's FIDE profile says "Not rated" on the main page, doesn't display ratings on the rating progress chart, but displays rating calculations.
  • The old FIDE rating site (which FIDE told me is no longer supported when I tried to make them aware of errors in it) includes Rausis (with Czech Republic affiliation) in the Top 100 up to February 2020 but no longer from March 2020.
  • The new FIDE rating site includes Rausis (with FIDE affiliation) in the Top 100 up to July 2020 but no longer from August 2020. This is exactly what would be expected under normal circumstances, given a year of inactivity after August 2019. Strangely, despite listing him at the rank corresponding to his rating, it doesn't list the rating, but that also holds for lists before the decision revoking his Grandmaster title, when he did have a rating (unless it's been retroactively declared invalid).
  • FIDE's complete list of ratings has always included Rausis and still does. (This is where the data comes from that's automatically filled in in the infobox if a FIDE ID is specified.)

To summarize: The complete list lists him, the new Top 100 listed him while one would expect it to, the unsupported old Top 100 dropped him a couple of months earlier, and only the personal profile indicates that he's not rated. Since there's no report of a decision to cancel his rating and the only decision we do have expressly says that his rating is unaffected, the weight of the evidence seems to favour that he still has a rating and the personal profile page is mistaken.

• Even if it does turn out that he no longer has a rating now, we should still display his historical peak rating and peak ranking. The fact that according to his confession they were affected by cheating since 2015 doesn't make them less official as long as FIDE doesn't retroactively correct them. In other articles we always meticulously follow official FIDE data, even if there are content-based arguments against them. (For instance, at List of FIDE chess world number ones, Kasparov isn't treated as world number one during 1994, even though he clearly was, because FIDE had taken him off the official list.)

I've emailed FIDE asking for clarification. For now, I think the ratings (historical and current) should remain. Joriki (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)