Talk:Igor Yerokhin

Please explain
OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a reason for deletion of properly cited text. It is very strange to me that you would delete, among other things, the most recent results of his doping history. And the deletion of for example the see also "Doping in Russia". Based solely on that basis. Please explain.

I'm also confused given that the editor who made this large deletion of properly cited text states on his page: "Following this finding of fact in the arbitration case (unrelated to me) I have stopped all administrator activity in the areas I edit — everything related to the countries of the former Soviet Union ... and to the Olympics."

This (second) deletion by the editor is clearly related to Russia - a country of the former Soviet Union - and to the Olympics as well. I understand that this is not "administrator activity," but nevertheless am especially surprised by this deletion of questionable basis, with this added bit of background.

2603:7000:2143:8500:B8EA:D7F1:9659:CA9C (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not mind adding the citation, but you reduced the lede to "X was an athlete who was banned for life for doping". This is absolutely unacceptable. Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But - that's not true. And yet when on that basis I again restored the above changes, you again deleted them. Including the most recent results of his doping history. And the deletion of -- for example -- the see also "Doping in Russia". Without any cogent explanation whatsoever. 2603:7000:2143:8500:454D:C167:FEDF:A728 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave the explanation. The lede you proposed entirely talked about the doping offences, not about anything else. This is WP:BLP violation and UNDUE. Since you clearly an agenda editor, I do not have any motivation to figure out which part of your edit is good and which is bad. Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote "you reduced the lede to "X was an athlete who was banned for life for doping"."

But that was untrue.


 * The lede - which you reverted - read

"Igor Nikolayevich Yerokhin or Erokhin (Russian: Игорь Николаевич Ерохин, September 4, 1985, in Saransk) is a Russian former race walker. He has been banned for life for doping, and all of his results from February 25, 2011, on have been disqualified [1] He was first handed a two-year period of ineligibility from September 9, 2008, to September 8, 2010, but ultimately was given a lifetime ban on August 28, 2013, for additional violations of anti-doping rules.[1] He was stripped of his results as a participant of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London and 5th place finish in the 50 kilometres walk.[2][3] In 2011, though he was stripped of this result after he was found to have violated anti-doping rules, he placed second at the European Race Walking Cup.[1]"


 * I am not - and am insulted by your assertion that I am - an "agenda editor."


 * Furthermore, of course you are not entitled to delete swaths of perfectly appropriate edits - ones you do not deny are perfectly appropriate in fact - just because you abandon any assumption of good faith, decide in your mind that I am an "agenda editor," and imagine that that would give you some right to delete all edits by me .. even ones that you would agree are entirely appropriate. Like his most recent drug infractions -- can you possibly be serious that you have support in wp rules for you to delete that? And the see also. And a host of other edits you deleted. I think you are making that up. Please point me to a basis for that.


 * I must say I find your heavy-handedness here to be somewhat surprising, and your failures to communicate properly at the top of this conversation to be surprising as well. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E812:A5B8:4E6B:DD1B (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Any uninvolved editor can look at the text and easily see that it is inappropriate. I am fully entitled to revert inappropriate edits. Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

independent opinion
for what it's worth, my view is that in the latest edit by user 2603:7000:2143:8500:b8ea:d7f1:9659:ca9c the lede as of 16 Sept 2022 did place an unnecessarily high prominence on the fact that the athlete had been banned for doping, almost to the exclusion of everything else about him. the lede at that point definitely needed to be edited to place a better balance on his achievements as an athlete and then his doping ban. the lede should start with what he did as an athlete, what it is about this person that made him notable in the first place. if the only thing you have to say about him is that he was banned for doping then he probably is not sufficiently notable to have a page in Wikipedia.

he was 5th in the Russian Junior Championship 10km walk in June 2004, he won the European Junior (U23) Championships 20km walk in 2005, he was 2nd in the Russian Winter Championship 10km Walk in 2006 and 2007, and 3rd in the European Racewalking Cup event at Leamington in 2007. after winning the Russian 50km Championship at Saransk in June 2008 he was selected for the 2008 Olympics but DNS. these are all significant achievements that could go into his career summary and be mentioned in the lede. then, having said what made him notable, and why he is in Wikipedia, you do obviously need to give that he was banned for doping and that results after a certain date have been anulled.

and please do try to remember that not everyone here has English as their first language.  Cottonshirt  τ   08:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your independent opinion. Some thoughts. 1. You say "if the only thing you have to say about him is that he was banned for doping then he probably is not sufficiently notable to have a page in Wikipedia." I do not understand why you think so. If you look at the coverage of him over the past decade, which is largely about his doping and being stripped of his record, it appears to me that it easily meets GNG. How do you see it as not? 2. If someone thinks, as you do - and I respect that - that the balance is best altered, is it not best to address that by discussion? And edits other than reverting RS supported text? 3. You have not discussed, and your thoughts would be helpful, on the editor's deletion of his most recent doping issues (in both the lede and the text body) - reported in RSs. And the see also. And other similar relevant RS supported text. There is no proper reason that I can see for that. The editor says that because he dislikes what you agree is the balance in the lede, he can delete all of that. That surprises me very much. Your thoughts? 4. I'm happy with your suggested structure for the lede - which consists of additions as I see it to what I had, rather than deletions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:ADFE:B5EE:1323:5903 (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * your first point: if an unknown athlete who has never achieved anything then gets banned for doping, and your Wikipedia article says, effectively, "this is a man, he walked, he got banned for doping" then that is not, in my opinion, contributing to Wikipedia and articles along those lines should get deleted. the threshold for notability is not, again, it's just my opinion, met simply because he got banned. if the guy who finished 138th in the High Wycombe 10km got banned, would he get a Wikipedia page just for that? I would like to think not. he has to have done something that makes him notable, first. then his ban means something.
 * your second and third points: just because the article needed editing does not mean that everything user Ymblanter did was right. I think that after reflecting on it you will both realise that you could have done things better, and that maybe it helps if you don't take disagreements personally. you both want the same thing, to improve the article. concentrate on making constructive suggestions towards achieving that goal and try to put your previous disagreement behind you.
 * your fourth point: the lede is supposed to summarise what is in the article. it is an introduction to the topic. my suggestion would be to write paragraphs on the athlete first. 1. origins, home and family life. 2. early career achievements, coaches, clubs. 3. international recognition, competitions abroad, major championships. 4. downfall. write those first. tell the story. then write a lede that summarises what you have said about him.
 * use your sandbox to write a draft. then invite the other user to review your draft. collaboration rather than confrontation. good luck.  Cottonshirt  τ   05:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)