Request for Arbitration of Paul Rubin vs. Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
[edit]
User:Phr vs. User:Sam_Sloan
[edit]
Involved parties
* User:Phr
* User:Sam_Sloan
* User:Rook_wave
All Parties are aware of this request
I have made a request for mediation in this dispute. User:Phr refused
two days ago.
This dispute has gone on for more than three months since early
December, 2005 and it is obvious that User:Phr and User:Rook_wave have
no interest in settling this dispute.
[edit]
Statement by User:Sam_Sloan
For the past 10 or 15 years, Paul Rubin who posts here as User:Phr has
made thousands of postings to various chess forums, all of which have
said basically the same thing, which is that membership dues of the
United States Chess Federation should be reduced to zero or in any
case to no more than $5, and that Paul Rubin should be allowed to play
USCF rated chess without being required to join the USCF or required
to subscribe to Chess Life magazine.
In general, Paul Rubin has been dismissed as a harmless crank, not to
be taken seriously, and is often the brunt of jokes.
That is until two days ago when it was discovered that Paul Rubin is
the same person as User:Phr who has been going about deleting the
biographies of chess politicians he does not like.
Paul Rubin knows Tom Dorsch personally and now that we know who
User:Phr is, we understand why User:Phr attacked the biography of Tom
Dorsch with such vehemence, because Tom Dorsch was one of the chess
politicians who raised the dues to $40.
When the biography of Tom Dorsch was first posted, User:Rook_wave
vandalized it by deleting all but the first two lines. When this was
reverted, User:Rook_wave then posted a AfD and then voted six times to
delete. He was joined by User:Phr who voted five times to delete. More
than that, every time a user voted to keep, he was attacked by
User:Phr who accused that person of being my sock puppet or my meat
puppet, even though he actually knew these people, having posted ten
thousand times to Usenet, and knew that they were completely
independent of me and not my friends.
As a result of the six votes to delete by User:Rook_wave and the five
votes to delete by User:Phr the biography of Tom Dorsch was deleted,
even though Tom Dorsch is one of the best known chess politicians in
the world. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch
User:Phr is completely different from User:Rook_wave. User:Rook_wave
is a German who lives in Germany. He does not seem to know anything
about chess. Paul Rubin, a/k/a User:Phr, on the other hand is a very
well known Bay Area chess personality, who has obvious animosity
towards other Bay Area chess personalities. So, even though User:Phr
and User:Rook_wave do not know each other, they team up and attack the
same targets, which is in this case me.
User:Phr has substantially deleted or modified in a negative way the
biographies of the following Bay Area chess personalities: Tom Dorsch,
Batchimeg Tuvshintugs, Eric Schiller, John W. Donaldson and Elena
Donaldson. He also substantially deleted the biography of Edward G.
Winter who is known for his attacks on Eric Schiller whom User:Phr
does not like.
Two days ago, User:Phr posted an AfD for speedy deletion for the
biographies of Bessel Kok, Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti,
Panupand Vijjuprabha, and Geoffrey Borg only five minutes after these
biographies were first posted. These are all important personalities
in their respective countries: Belgium, Turkey, Paraguay, Thailand and
Malta. He got these biographies deleted by administrators who
obviously did not know who they were, except for the first biography.
When he was unable to get an administrator to delete the biography of
Bessel Kok, he deleted almost all the content himself except for just
a few lines.
In addition, Paul Rubin posted modifications to his own biography,
which is a violation of Wikipedia rules.
This is a major dispute which has already lasted for more than three
months and is not going to end, especially with the World Chess
Olympiad starting in Torino, Italy on May 20. Therefore, the
arbitration committee should consider this dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Phr_vs._User:Sam_Sloan
Paul Rubin
> Paul Rubin knows Tom Dorsch personally and now that we know who
> User:Phr is, we understand why User:Phr attacked the biography of Tom
> Dorsch with such vehemence, because Tom Dorsch was one of the chess
> politicians who raised the dues to $40.
Are you saying I'm buddies with Dorsch, or that I hate him? I can't
figure out which you mean. If I hate him so much, why would I have
supported deleting your attack biography of him?
FWIW, I don't know Dorsch personally unless you count my having seen
him around a few chess events in the early 1990's and spoken to him at
those events for a total of maybe 1 minute, and not about anything
memorable. I did participate in Usenet discussions with him sometime
after that.
> User:Phr is completely different from User:Rook_wave. User:Rook_wave
> is a German who lives in Germany. He does not seem to know anything
> about chess. Paul Rubin, a/k/a User:Phr, on the other hand is a very
> well known Bay Area chess personality, who has obvious animosity
> towards other Bay Area chess personalities.
I can't think of any Bay Area chess people who I have any animosity
towards, though if by "Bay Area" you include Brooklyn, there's a
certain cab driver there who I have a pretty dim view of right now.
I've never thought of myself as a "well known chess personality" but I
suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. I was a regular player at
the Berkeley Chess Club for a few years and got to some other players
in the area, and I post to rgcp on and off, but that's about it.
> He also substantially deleted the biography of Edward G.
> Winter who is known for his attacks on Eric Schiller whom User:Phr
> does not like.
I do know Eric Schiller slightly in person. My views differ from his
in some areas but I don't dislike him and I like to think I'm on
generally friendly terms with him. My most memorable meeting with him
featured a long and interesting conversation about linguistics.
I felt I should correct these particular errors here on Usenet, though
I expect Sloan is also circulating them on his email list that he used
to spam me with (he finally removed me after repeated requests).
Paul Rubin
> suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. I was a regular player at
> the Berkeley Chess Club for a few years and got to some other players
> in the area, and I post to rgcp on and off, but that's about it.
Typo, "got to some" should say "got to know some".
Intelli Gent Design
Ray Gordon
vkar...@yahoo.com
Have you tried to bring your complain to the International Society for
the Prevention of Cruely towards Animals?
Also, what are the "chess politicians" that you constantly talk about?
Is it politiicians who play chess or chess palyers who entered
politics?
And whom do you mean? Garry Kasparov? Kirsan Ilyumzhinov? Slobo
Milosevic? Bobby Fischer?
And thank you and your shrinik for trying to destroy Wikipedia and
Usenet by filling them with garbage.
vkar...@yahoo.com
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> Who's on top?
Black on the top. White on the bottom. White to stale mate in two
moves.
Louis Blair
_
Sloan goes on at length about Usenet posts and makes mostly-wrong
personal allegations about me that are irrelevant to Wikipedia. I'll
skip
most of the non-Wikipedia stuff for brevity but will state that I don't
know Tom Dorsch in person beyond having met him at chess
tournaments once or twice in the early 1990's and spoken to him for
a total of maybe one minute. I'm familiar with Dorsch's USCF activities
mostly through Usenet. I'll also say that since Sloan posts his
Wikipedia articles to Usenet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Usenet
readers spot the errors and come to Wikipedia to fix them. Also:
Rook wave is an internationally rated chessplayer of equivalent
strength to a US national master
(http://fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=4666313), so the statement
that he knows nothing about chess is absurd.
_
I declined mediation because Sloan's RFM
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&oldid=44627462#User:Phr_against_User:Sam_Sloan)
asked for a "cease and desist" order against Rook wave and myself,
and that's outside the scope of what mediators can do. I'd actually
be willing to enter a mediation process that could do that (i.e. one
that could result in an agreement binding on Sloan and me and
enforceable by admins), but Wikipedia does not have such a thing
right now. As for the specific charges:
_
1. Louis Blair (below) linked to the Tom Dorsch DRV
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=43217170&oldid=43215421)
which was one of several places where the multiple vote and
sockpuppet issue was explained to Sloan. Sloan's earlier RFAR
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=39171201#User:Sam_Sloan_against_User:Howcheng_regarding_Tom_Dorsch)
may also be of interest.
_
2. Sloan recently took it on himself to campaign for Bessel Kok's
slate of candidates in the upcoming FIDE election
(http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/14c509552b9798be).
He put a biography of Panupand Vijjuprabha (one of Kok's team) on
Wikipedia, that was an obvious campaign piece that included stuff
like Vijjuprabha's phone number. I felt this was non-notable so I
made an AfD nomination to get community opinion
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Panupand_Vijjuprabha).
I then noticed the article was pasted verbatim from Kok's group's
web site
(http://www.rightmove06.org/index.php?set_language=en&cccpage=articleview&set_z_articles=62)
without attribution, so I noted that (and gave the link) in the AfD.
The bio
was speedied as a copyvio a few minutes later.
_
3. Sloan copied several more bios from the same source over the next
hour. I entered SD requests for these, giving the source links
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions&oldid=44761556#Deletion_of_Articles).
These too were speedied (Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio César Ingolotti, and
Geoffrey Borg). I also briefly put up a SD request for Bessel Kok
(mentioning his higher notability), but I then saw that Kok's bio
contained a mixture of copied and non-copied material, so I took
down my SD request and edited out the copied material. Except for
Kok and Yazici, these people are non-notable (a few hundred
Google hits at most).
_
4. Sloan apparently in retaliation for the above deletions then put
up a stupid attack bio about me (Paul Rubin) full of incorrect
factoids.
I entered an SD request (noting that I was the subject of the article)
and put db-bio and db-attack tags at the top of the article, but I
didn't
modify the article text. I felt at the time that this procedure was ok.
Sloan removed the tags and I didn't restore them. Another editor (at
my request) then looked at the article and put in a db tag, and the
article was speedied a few minutes later.
_
5. My edit to the Eric Schiller article was to briefly explain a term
related to Schiller's academic work
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Schiller&diff=42470602&oldid=41050768).
That Sloan sees this as a substantial negative modification indicates
ownership issues on Sloan's part,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN). I'll add that I like Schiller
just
fine.
_
6. Batchimeg Tuvshintugs is a chess player who placed 27th out of
32 in her section of the recent US championship, but scored several
surprising upset victories over grandmasters in the early rounds,
possibly because she was unknown and they underestimated her
when they sat down to play. She then lost the rest of her games in
the later rounds. Sloan wrote a puff-piece promotional bio ("I see no
harm in trying to bring some publicity to a new player by saying that
her result is 'perhaps' the best result for five games of any woman
player in chess history"
(http://groups.google.com/group/samsloan/msg/54208ca8edb1c3f2?dmode=source),
i.e. Sloan decided he saw no harm in using Wikipedia as an outlet
for public relations propaganda). I and another editor worked on the
article to bring it closer to neutrality.
_
7. John W. Donaldson and Elena Akhmilovskaya were (respectively)
a US and a then-Soviet player, who met at a series of international
chess tournaments in the 1980's and became romantically involved
at those events. In 1988 at the chess Olympiad in Greece, they
eloped and got married, and incident got wide press coverage (the
elopement was necessary because it was hard for Soviets to get
exit visas from the USSR in those days). The newlywed couple was
interviewed many times and consistently denied any political
motivation behind the marriage. But the two Wikipedia articles
described EA's entry to the US as a defection, which has political
overtones. I changed "defected" to "emigrated" in EA's article, a
3-second edit turning a POV term to a neutral one, the kind of easy
incremental improvement that keeps Wikipedia moving towards
reliability, and made a similar type of edit in the JD article. Sloan
rv'd the edits saying (with no documentation) that it really was a
political defection
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Donaldson&action=history),
a contentious claim that insinuates that the Donaldsons had entered
a marriage of convenience. I felt I had to fix the article because as a
chess buff, I remembered the incident, but not many other Wikipedia
editors were likely to recall such a thing. I then spent 1/2 an hour
digging up an old newspaper article and adding a cite about how the
couple met. This is a good example of Wikipedia's "Sloan problem".
Since Sloan was the one wanting to use a contentious term, he, not
me, should have been the one spending his time that way. Editors
like Sloan discourage the small easy incremental improvements that
Wikipedia depends on, by turning them into instances of "no good
deed goes unpunished".
_
I actually do find Sloan's writing entertaining and sometimes
informative, and I read it with interest (and many grains of salt) on
Usenet and on his web site. Wikipedia is just not the right place for
it, given its lack of sourcing
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V), its reliance on Sloan's personal
knowledge
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR), and its opinionated
approaches
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV). I haven't had serious
problems directly with Sloan til now. This is not an off-wiki dispute
that spilled here; it's more like the other way around.
_
Although Sloan's filing of this RFAR didn't follow normal procedures,
I hope that it's accepted and some measure is taken against Sloan
(whether blocking, mentorship, or whatever), for the reasons I gave
in his RFAR against Rook_wave, below. Louis Blair suggested the
"users who exhaust the community's patience" clause in WP:BLOCK.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLOCK)
Sloan has announced his intention to post more of his "biographies"
for the upcoming Olympiad and they're likely to be full of his usual
confabulation, each one a potential Seigenthaler incident in its own
right, and I dread this. The situation is quite bad. - Phr (05:41,
21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by Sjakkalle
_
I would recommend to Sam Sloan that he refrain from filing requests
for arbitration for a while. He has made a number of reasonable and
valuable contributions to chess articles, but the fact is that many of
them, especially biographies of living people lack adequate cited
sources and don't comply with a neutral point of view. This is the
reason many of his articles are trimmed down, or deleted outright as
was the case with Tom Dorsch. For instance, if we look at the initial
revisions of the Bessel Kok article, one which almost looks like a
campaigning piece for his election, we see an attack on the current
FIDE president Ilyumzhinov, accusing him of bribery. Again, the
article lacks sources.
_
That articles don't remain the way we created them, and that some
of the changes are ones we dislike is something all Wikipedia editors
need to live with, indeed the editing screen says in big bold writing:
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or
redistributed
by others, do not submit it."
_
Sloan has previously filed an RFAr against the very dilligent and fair
administrator Howcheng, and has filed another RFAr further down on
this page very similar to this one. What we have here is a content
dispute, or perhaps a off-wiki dispute which has spilled over to
Wikipedia. If it's a content dispute it should be noted that in very
many cases consensus has not been favorable to Sloan's revisions.
Also, bringing this to arbitration when there is hardly any edits to
the
other parties' user-talkpages
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Sam_Sloan&offset=0&limit=500&namespace=3)
is, at the very least, premature. If it's an off-wiki dispute, it
should
remain off-wiki. I do not think that such disputes are the purview of
Wikipedia's arbitration comitee. Therefore, I recommend rejection of
this case as well, if not I think the case would be more about Sloan
than the other parties Sloan has listed. - Sjakkalle (Check!) (11:08,
20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by an outsider
_
In his request for review of the Tom Dorsch deletion decision, Sam
Sloan made similar claims about multiple votes. In response to such
claims, Howcheng wrote, "recounting the votes on the discussion
page shows only one legitimate keep vote, which is Mgm and seven
valid delete votes: Jareth, Phr, Olorin28, Titoxd, TheRingess, Parallel
or Together, pgk. I did not count any votes by anonymous users, as
well as Andrew Zito (who just had some weird anti-Wikipedia rant)
and Billbrock, who has a history with [Sam Sloan]." (17:00,
6 March 2006 (UTC)) Rook wave wrote, "That I voted six times is of
course ... just plain wrong. I made comments ..., but only voted once,
as can be easily verified." (19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) For details,
see:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review&diff=43217170&oldid=43215421
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
_
- Louis Blair (March 20, 2006)
_
Comment by Olorin28
I first contacted the article Tom Dorsch after a request for comment
was filed, I believed by Rook Wave. Ater a glance at the article, and
other articles written by Sam Sloan, it became very clear to me that
he was using Wikipedia to express his point of view. The biographies
he wrote about various chess personas consisted 90 percent of
personal attacks, gossips and rants gleaned from what he called
"reliable sources" from usenet. While I do not believe that the similar
cases to that of Siegenthaler will surface here, I believe that the
articles Sam Sloan writes are completely one-sided and expressed
significant biase. Rook Wave, I believe, is correct in removing most
of the attacks and rants from these articles. The request by Sam
Sloan for Rook Wave to stop editing his articles is simply detrimental
to the well-being of Wikipedia. - Olorin28 (03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by JzG
_
To state the obvious, non-admin users cannot "delete" articles, they
can only edit them or propose their deletion. The fact that Sam
Sloan's contributions are often tendentious is a key contributory
factor in their reversion or deletion, as noted above. It is telling
that
Sloan's response to this ios to raise complaints about the editors,
administrators and processes which oppose his actions, rather than
to adopt a more neutral editing style.
_
Sloan's description of the content and history of the Tom Dorsch
article bears only the most superficial resemblance to the truth.
The article was a blatant attack on a person for whom Sloan clearly
bears considerable animosity. For any non-admins, and to save the
trouble of dredging in the deleted history, here is an example
paragraph:
_
His problem was that, although he usually won, whenever
he won big he would go out and buy a steak dinner at a
fancy restaurant and spend his winnings. If he won even
more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would
check out the whorehouses and the strip clubs, with an
eye for the donkey shows. He even got to know some of
the girls who performed in these animal acts on a first
name basis. He would spend all his gambling winnings
and, as a result, when he lost, he would not have any
backup money to get back into the game.
_
And:
_
Therefore, Dorsch tried to hustle the weak games in the
game room at the ASUC Student Union building on the
campus of the University of California at Berkeley. His
problem there was that the impoverished students he
beat at poker often did not pay their gambling debts.
_
Sloan edit-warred over this article, including edit summaries like:
_
"reverted Edits by User:Jareth. She obviously knows
nothing about the subject and has no business
repeatedly vandalizing this article."
_
The deletion of the Dorsch article was partly the result of a lack
of any credible evidence of notability, and partly because
experienced editors apparently felt that the effort of fighting Sam
Sloan's "ownership" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN) was
not worth the effort for this minor character. Even editors who felt
that Dorsch does nose over the line into notability voted to delete
the article and start again later.
_
I commend to Sam Sloan the following:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox).
I do not believe I am alone in seeing strong evidence of Sam Sloan
extending to his Wikipedia contributions the strong agenda he has
outside of Wikipedia. The solution is not for those who disagree with
Sloan to stop editing, it's for Sloan to stop adding tendentious
content. And Sam, sometimes when everybody tells you that you
are wrong, it's because you are wrong. - Just zis Guy you know?
(10:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by Thorri
_
Sam Sloan has publicly stated that "I hate Dorsch so I write garbage
about him" and "my job is to smear everyone who doesn't support
Goichberg and Schultz".
(http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-misc/Wikipedia_Biography_of_Tom_Dorsch_206978.html)
(scroll down) --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! (18:18, 21 March
2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by an outsider
_
In fairness to Sam Sloan, it should be mentioned that there DOES
appear to be a person who posts fake Sam Sloan notes from
addresses like "sl...@journalist.com" (probably chosen to make
fun of those who claim that Sam Sloan deserves to be considered
a journalist). In general, the source addresses for the notes seem
to hint at there non-authentic nature. On 30 Dec 2005
07:50:03 -0800, "sl...@whoever.com" posted a
rec.games.chess.politics note that openly declared, "[No Sloan
postings, and no fake Sloan postings.] That's what you'll get if
Sloan stops posting in 2006." On 30 Dec 2005 08:22:17 -0800,
Taylor Kingston addressed the author of the apparently fake Sam
Sloan notes: "While in general your negative view of Sam Sloan is
quite justified, your practice of filling the newsgroups with childish,
asinine comments is pointless and annoying. The crude,
hopelessly inept attempts at parody tarnish your own image more
than they do his. You may succeed in doing something Sam by
himself could not possibly do -- arouse sympathy for him." The
I-write-garbage quote (mentioned by Thorri) came from
sl...@journalist.com. - Louis Blair (March 21, 2006)
_
I confirm that what Louis Blair said above is true. - Phr (01:49,
22 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)
_
Reject; nothing for the ArbCom here. AfD nominations, speedy
deletions for copyvios, content editing disputes, all proceeding
as usual. Even if Sam Sloan were the authority he takes himself
to be, that would cut no special ice on Wikipedia. Unsourced
gossip being cut is a good thing, as Sam should note well.
- Charles Matthews (18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Reject. - Dmcdevit·t (02:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
Louis Blair
_
Sloan goes on at length about Usenet posts and makes mostly-wrong
personal allegations about me that are irrelevant to Wikipedia. I'll
skip most of the non-Wikipedia stuff for brevity but will state that I
don't know Tom Dorsch in person beyond having met him at chess
tournaments once or twice in the early 1990's and spoken to him for
a total of maybe one minute. I'm familiar with Dorsch's USCF activities
mostly through Usenet. I'll also say that since Sloan posts his
Wikipedia articles to Usenet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Usenet
readers spot the errors and come to Wikipedia to fix them. Also:
Rook wave is an internationally rated chessplayer of equivalent
strength to a US national master
that he knows nothing about chess is absurd.
_
I declined mediation because Sloan's RFM
asked for a "cease and desist" order against Rook wave and myself,
and that's outside the scope of what mediators can do. I'd actually
be willing to enter a mediation process that could do that (i.e. one
that could result in an agreement binding on Sloan and me and
enforceable by admins), but Wikipedia does not have such a thing
right now. As for the specific charges:
_
1. Louis Blair (below) linked to the Tom Dorsch DRV
which was one of several places where the multiple vote and
sockpuppet issue was explained to Sloan. Sloan's earlier RFAR
may also be of interest.
_
2. Sloan recently took it on himself to campaign for Bessel Kok's
slate of candidates in the upcoming FIDE election
He put a biography of Panupand Vijjuprabha (one of Kok's team) on
Wikipedia, that was an obvious campaign piece that included stuff
like Vijjuprabha's phone number. I felt this was non-notable so I
made an AfD nomination to get community opinion
I then noticed the article was pasted verbatim from Kok's group's
web site
without attribution, so I noted that (and gave the link) in the AfD.
The bio
was speedied as a copyvio a few minutes later.
_
3. Sloan copied several more bios from the same source over the next
hour. I entered SD requests for these, giving the source links
These too were speedied (Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio C=C3=A9sar Ingolotti,
and
Geoffrey Borg). I also briefly put up a SD request for Bessel Kok
(mentioning his higher notability), but I then saw that Kok's bio
contained a mixture of copied and non-copied material, so I took
down my SD request and edited out the copied material. Except for
Kok and Yazici, these people are non-notable (a few hundred
Google hits at most).
_
4. Sloan apparently in retaliation for the above deletions then put
up a stupid attack bio about me (Paul Rubin) full of incorrect
factoids. I entered an SD request (noting that I was the subject
of the article) and put db-bio and db-attack tags at the top of the
article, but I didn't modify the article text. I felt at the time that
this procedure was ok. Sloan removed the tags and I didn't
restore them. Another editor (at my request) then looked at the
article and put in a db tag, and the article was speedied a few
minutes later.
_
5. My edit to the Eric Schiller article was to briefly explain a term
related to Schiller's academic work
That Sloan sees this as a substantial negative modification indicates
ownership issues on Sloan's part,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN). I'll add that I like Schiller
just fine.
_
6. Batchimeg Tuvshintugs is a chess player who placed 27th out of
32 in her section of the recent US championship, but scored several
surprising upset victories over grandmasters in the early rounds,
possibly because she was unknown and they underestimated her
when they sat down to play. She then lost the rest of her games in
the later rounds. Sloan wrote a puff-piece promotional bio ("I see no
harm in trying to bring some publicity to a new player by saying that
her result is 'perhaps' the best result for five games of any woman
player in chess history"
i.e. Sloan decided he saw no harm in using Wikipedia as an outlet
for public relations propaganda). I and another editor worked on the
article to bring it closer to neutrality.
_
7. John W. Donaldson and Elena Akhmilovskaya were (respectively)
a US and a then-Soviet player, who met at a series of international
chess tournaments in the 1980's and became romantically involved
at those events. In 1988 at the chess Olympiad in Greece, they
eloped and got married, and incident got wide press coverage (the
elopement was necessary because it was hard for Soviets to get
exit visas from the USSR in those days). The newlywed couple was
interviewed many times and consistently denied any political
motivation behind the marriage. But the two Wikipedia articles
described EA's entry to the US as a defection, which has political
overtones. I changed "defected" to "emigrated" in EA's article, a
3-second edit turning a POV term to a neutral one, the kind of easy
incremental improvement that keeps Wikipedia moving towards
reliability, and made a similar type of edit in the JD article. Sloan
rv'd the edits saying (with no documentation) that it really was a
political defection
is, at the very least, premature. If it's an off-wiki dispute, it
should remain off-wiki. I do not think that such disputes are the
purview of Wikipedia's arbitration comitee. Therefore, I recommend
rejection of this case as well, if not I think the case would be more
about Sloan than the other parties Sloan has listed. - Sjakkalle
(Check!) (11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by an outsider
_
In his request for review of the Tom Dorsch deletion decision, Sam
Sloan made similar claims about multiple votes. In response to such
claims, Howcheng wrote, "recounting the votes on the discussion
page shows only one legitimate keep vote, which is Mgm and seven
valid delete votes: Jareth, Phr, Olorin28, Titoxd, TheRingess, Parallel
or Together, pgk. I did not count any votes by anonymous users, as
well as Andrew Zito (who just had some weird anti-Wikipedia rant)
and Billbrock, who has a history with [Sam Sloan]." (17:00,
6 March 2006 (UTC)) Rook wave wrote, "That I voted six times is of
course ... just plain wrong. I made comments ..., but only voted once,
as can be easily verified." (19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) For details,
see:
_
(scroll down) --TonyM (18:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by an outsider
_
In fairness to Sam Sloan, it should be mentioned that there DOES
appear to be a person who posts fake Sam Sloan notes from
addresses like "sl...@journalist.com" (probably chosen to make
fun of those who claim that Sam Sloan deserves to be considered
a journalist). In general, the source addresses for the notes seem
Louis Blair
_
Sloan goes on at length about Usenet posts and makes mostly-wrong
personal allegations about me that are irrelevant to Wikipedia. I'll
skip most of the non-Wikipedia stuff for brevity but will state that I
don't know Tom Dorsch in person beyond having met him at chess
tournaments once or twice in the early 1990's and spoken to him for
a total of maybe one minute. I'm familiar with Dorsch's USCF activities
mostly through Usenet. I'll also say that since Sloan posts his
Wikipedia articles to Usenet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Usenet
readers spot the errors and come to Wikipedia to fix them. Also:
Rook wave is an internationally rated chessplayer of equivalent
strength to a US national master
that he knows nothing about chess is absurd.
_
I declined mediation because Sloan's RFM
asked for a "cease and desist" order against Rook wave and myself,
and that's outside the scope of what mediators can do. I'd actually
be willing to enter a mediation process that could do that (i.e. one
that could result in an agreement binding on Sloan and me and
enforceable by admins), but Wikipedia does not have such a thing
right now. As for the specific charges:
_
1. Louis Blair (below) linked to the Tom Dorsch DRV
which was one of several places where the multiple vote and
sockpuppet issue was explained to Sloan. Sloan's earlier RFAR
may also be of interest.
_
2. Sloan recently took it on himself to campaign for Bessel Kok's
slate of candidates in the upcoming FIDE election
He put a biography of Panupand Vijjuprabha (one of Kok's team) on
Wikipedia, that was an obvious campaign piece that included stuff
like Vijjuprabha's phone number. I felt this was non-notable so I
made an AfD nomination to get community opinion
I then noticed the article was pasted verbatim from Kok's group's
web site
without attribution, so I noted that (and gave the link) in the AfD.
The bio was speedied as a copyvio a few minutes later.
_
3. Sloan copied several more bios from the same source over the next
hour. I entered SD requests for these, giving the source links
These too were speedied (Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio C=C3=A9sar Ingolotti,
and
Geoffrey Borg). I also briefly put up a SD request for Bessel Kok
(mentioning his higher notability), but I then saw that Kok's bio
contained a mixture of copied and non-copied material, so I took
down my SD request and edited out the copied material. Except for
Kok and Yazici, these people are non-notable (a few hundred
Google hits at most).
_
4. Sloan apparently in retaliation for the above deletions then put
up a stupid attack bio about me (Paul Rubin) full of incorrect
factoids. I entered an SD request (noting that I was the subject
of the article) and put db-bio and db-attack tags at the top of the
article, but I didn't modify the article text. I felt at the time that
this procedure was ok. Sloan removed the tags and I didn't
restore them. Another editor (at my request) then looked at the
article and put in a db tag, and the article was speedied a few
minutes later.
_
5. My edit to the Eric Schiller article was to briefly explain a term
related to Schiller's academic work
That Sloan sees this as a substantial negative modification indicates
ownership issues on Sloan's part,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN). I'll add that I like Schiller
just fine.
_
6. Batchimeg Tuvshintugs is a chess player who placed 27th out of
32 in her section of the recent US championship, but scored several
surprising upset victories over grandmasters in the early rounds,
possibly because she was unknown and they underestimated her
when they sat down to play. She then lost the rest of her games in
the later rounds. Sloan wrote a puff-piece promotional bio ("I see no
harm in trying to bring some publicity to a new player by saying that
her result is 'perhaps' the best result for five games of any woman
player in chess history"
i.e. Sloan decided he saw no harm in using Wikipedia as an outlet
for public relations propaganda). I and another editor worked on the
article to bring it closer to neutrality.
_
7. John W. Donaldson and Elena Akhmilovskaya were (respectively)
a US and a then-Soviet player, who met at a series of international
chess tournaments in the 1980's and became romantically involved
at those events. In 1988 at the chess Olympiad in Greece, they
eloped and got married, and incident got wide press coverage (the
elopement was necessary because it was hard for Soviets to get
exit visas from the USSR in those days). The newlywed couple was
interviewed many times and consistently denied any political
motivation behind the marriage. But the two Wikipedia articles
described EA's entry to the US as a defection, which has political
overtones. I changed "defected" to "emigrated" in EA's article, a
3-second edit turning a POV term to a neutral one, the kind of easy
incremental improvement that keeps Wikipedia moving towards
reliability, and made a similar type of edit in the JD article. Sloan
rv'd the edits saying (with no documentation) that it really was a
political defection
is, at the very least, premature. If it's an off-wiki dispute, it
should remain off-wiki. I do not think that such disputes are the
purview of Wikipedia's arbitration comitee. Therefore, I recommend
rejection of this case as well, if not I think the case would be more
about Sloan than the other parties Sloan has listed. - Sjakkalle
(Check!) (11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
Comment by an outsider
_
In his request for review of the Tom Dorsch deletion decision, Sam
Sloan made similar claims about multiple votes. In response to such
claims, Howcheng wrote, "recounting the votes on the discussion
page shows only one legitimate keep vote, which is Mgm and seven
valid delete votes: Jareth, Phr, Olorin28, Titoxd, TheRingess, Parallel
or Together, pgk. I did not count any votes by anonymous users, as
well as Andrew Zito (who just had some weird anti-Wikipedia rant)
and Billbrock, who has a history with [Sam Sloan]." (17:00,
6 March 2006 (UTC)) Rook wave wrote, "That I voted six times is of
course ... just plain wrong. I made comments ..., but only voted once,
as can be easily verified." (19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) For details,
see:
_
Paul Rubin
> Statement by Phr
> _
> Sloan goes on at length about Usenet posts and makes mostly-wrong
Um, is there some reason you keep reposting this?
Defective WIKIPEDIA
defection, which has political overtones. I changed "defected" to
"emigrated" in EA's article, a 3-second edit turning a POV term to a neutral
one, the kind of easy
incremental improvement that keeps Wikipedia moving towards
reliability, and made a similar type of edit in the JD article. >>
DEAR FUCKING SCUMBAG ASSHOLE:
When people left Communist Nations while at tournaments, sporting events, or
other public events, it has always been called a DEFECTION. It is still
called a DEFECTION when Olympic athletes and Cuban baseball players DEFECT,
usually to the United States.
Trying to retcon some politically correct bullshit does not improve the
credibility of SHITPEDIA, it just shows once again why SHITPEDIA is a total
fucking joke, and how it's content is created by LAMEDICK FAGGOTS who have
no fucking clue.
BURN IN HELL, REVISISIONIST DICK-LICKER.
Defective WIKIPEDIA
He probably wants to create a truth by repeating it over and over again.
This is something that Communists often do. You should know, revisionist
shit-head.
Paul Rubin
> When people left Communist Nations while at tournaments, sporting events, or
> other public events, it has always been called a DEFECTION. It is still
> called a DEFECTION when Olympic athletes and Cuban baseball players DEFECT,
> usually to the United States.
It depends on why they do it.
Paul Ass-Rubin
You are fucking pathetic. It figures that someone like Sam Sloan would be
editing Sam Sloan's WikiShitpedia articles.
You lost all your credibility when you retconned a well-known, universally
accepted historical fact that is still true even today.
How sad that some mealy-mouthed mud-fish can change what was essentially a
very dangerous escape from a totalitarian government (DEFECTION) and call it
emigrating. In case you are not aware of this fact DUMBFUCK, you are not an
immigrant when you don't have any LEGAL documents or authority to emigrate
from your homeland (SOVIET UNION). You are at best an illegal alien, but
since the USSR had specific laws against such actions, EA was a DEFECTOR.
So all of your craven WikiShitpedia activities will only change history and
the truth in the minds of those few who are so ignorant as to rely on
WikiShitpedia for their historical facts. Wikipedia has to be the biggest
source of misinformation in the entire world. An encyclopedia created by all
the trash of the universe.
Paul Rubin
> very dangerous escape from a totalitarian government (DEFECTION) and call it
> emigrating. In case you are not aware of this fact DUMBFUCK, you are not an
> immigrant when you don't have any LEGAL documents or authority to emigrate
> from your homeland (SOVIET UNION). You are at best an illegal alien,
> but since the USSR had specific laws against such actions, EA was a
> DEFECTOR.
If she moved from one country to another, she emigrated, so
"emigrated" is definitely true, though I'd accept that it doesn't tell
the whole story all by itself. But I think the rest of the article
explains well enough how she left.
"Defected" may also be true, but that word has overtones that she said
didn't apply to her case. According to her, she left ("defected", if
you insist) for purely personal reasons, namely that she wanted to
pursue a romantic relationship. Sloan's edit summary specifically
said "it certainly was a political move", i.e. that she left because
she didn't like something about the USSR or its government. She was
careful at the time not to say that.
Of course, anyone looking at the facts of the case can form their own
opinion of what was really going on, but Wikipedia articles are
supposed to present only facts, not opinions. The article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V
explains the policy more explicitly.
Andrew Zito
Paula Abdool
> "emigrated" is definitely true, though I'd accept that it doesn't tell
> the whole story all by itself.>>
Dear asshole, This comes from your own sainted source of knowledge, The
Wikishitpedia:
A defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one political entity in
exchange for allegiance to another.
This act is usually in a manner which violates the laws of the nation or
political entity from which the person is seeking to depart, as opposed to a
change of citizenship, which does not typically defy the law of any nation.
During the Cold War, the many people escaping across the Berlin Wall to flee
from communist East Germany to the West were called defectors. During the
Vietnam War, many Army of the Republic of Vietnam forces defected to the
National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam, and some U.S. soldiers fragged
their officers in protest of the war.
The term has been widely used by the media in the United States to denote
immigrants from Fidel Castro's Cuba; however, some conservatives object to
this characterization, pointing out that the American press never referred
to those who left Germany during the Third Reich era as "defectors."
It is too bad that an invertebrate like you can edit anything, and change
the facts of the Cold War and the history of the world. Your activities are
a sign that the Western Civilization is in a nosedive and will eventually
crash and burn.
Some other culture (China) will become dominant, and they will point to
Wikipedia as one of the signs that the decadent West had reached its
cultural and intellectual dead end.
Louis Blair
Paul Rubin
> A defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one political entity in
> exchange for allegiance to another.
OK. Akhilovskaya claimed she departed the USSR in order to pursue a
personal relationship, not to change her political allegiance. So by
your definition, that's not a defection.
Of course you can form any opinion you want about her claim, but your
opinion is irrelevant unless it's documented. It's best to just say
what the facts are, and let readers form their own opinions.
> During the Cold War, the many people escaping across the Berlin Wall to flee
> from communist East Germany to the West were called defectors.
Yes. Because they were generally leaving in order to escape the East
German government and give up their allegiance to it. That's
defection by your definition. If an East German crossed the wall to
be with a romantic partner on the other side, but still called herself
a loyal Communist and didn't change allegiance, "defector" wouldn't be
an appropriate word, according to my sense of what you're saying.
> During the Vietnam War, many Army of the Republic of Vietnam forces
> defected to the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam,
Same deal: change of political allegiance. That's the difference.
> and some U.S. soldiers fragged their officers in protest of the war.
I don't see what that has to do with defection.
> The term has been widely used by the media in the United States to denote
> immigrants from Fidel Castro's Cuba; however, some conservatives object to
> this characterization, pointing out that the American press never referred
> to those who left Germany during the Third Reich era as "defectors."
I can't tell whether you're saying that the Cuban expats really aren't
defectors, or that people who fled the Third Reich really were
defectors, or neither, or both. Anyway, when there's doubt, it's best
to just describe their departures in factual terms.
> It is too bad that an invertebrate like you can edit anything, and change
> the facts of the Cold War and the history of the world. Your activities are
> a sign that the Western Civilization is in a nosedive and will eventually
> crash and burn.
If you've got some documented facts about the JD-EA incident that you
think are relevant and you can cite suitable sources, then they can be
included in the article.
FWIW, the sentence in question (my version) said something like "JD
helped EA emigrate to the US". Since you had a problem with
"emigrate", I've now changed it to "immigrate", which has less
reference to the laws of the USSR. She definitely entered the US
legally (i.e. with the permission of the US govt), through JD's efforts.
Note also that after reaching the US, EA was able to work with the
Soviet Embassy to get her legal situation in the USSR straightened
out, so she could return there temporarily to get her affairs in
order, and emigrate legally. This is described at some length in the
London Times article cited in the Wikipedia article, IIRC.
I don't know whether EA ever gave up her Soviet citizenship, or what
her citizenship is today.
Communist Stooge
pursue a personal relationship, not to change her political allegiance. So
by your definition, that's not a defection.
>
definition of her nation, the former USSR. By their definition, her
emigration was illegal and therefore a Defection.
You are a fucking stump, and it is appropriate that your main hobby is
following around Sloan. I hope you get anal syphillis from your negro lover.
Paul Rubin
> Gee fuckwad, it is not by my definition, or her definition. It is by the
> definition of her nation, the former USSR. By their definition, her
> emigration was illegal and therefore a Defection.
If her emigration was illegal, why did the USSR government give her
papers and let her leave again, after she went back to pick up her
daughter and her belongings? You do know that they did that, right?
samsloan
> "Communist Stooge" <com...@stooge.com> writes:
> > it is not by my definition, or her definition. It is by the
> > definition of her nation, the former USSR. By their definition, her
> > emigration was illegal and therefore a Defection.
>
> If her emigration was illegal, why did the USSR government give her
> papers and let her leave again, after she went back to pick up her
> daughter and her belongings? You do know that they did that, right?
That was years later. Perhaps you may have heard that the Berlin Wall
fell in 1990.
The politics of Paul Rubin is very strange. Are you still a Commie?
Early in the morning even before I woke up (I was right there,
remember) they caught a flight to Switzerland with the help of Larry
Christiansen. The US Embassy married them in the embassy and then put
them on a special flight to America.
How often do mere lovebirds get such high-level treatment from the US
Embassy?? It took me four years to get a green card for my wife.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
> Statement by Phr
> _
> 7. John W. Donaldson and Elena Akhmilovskaya were (respectively)
> a US and a then-Soviet player, who met at a series of international
> chess tournaments in the 1980's and became romantically involved
> at those events.
Another Commie lie.
I was at many of those events, especially Dubai 1986, and never once
did I catch them fucking.
Paul Rubin
> > If her emigration was illegal, why did the USSR government give her
> > papers and let her leave again, after she went back to pick up her
> > daughter and her belongings? You do know that they did that, right?
>
> That was years later. Perhaps you may have heard that the Berlin Wall
> fell in 1990.
No, it wasn't years later. Why don't you ever research stuff yourself
and cite sources, instead of making up nonsense?
She ran off with Donaldson in November 1988 and returned to the USSR
in May 1989, which is not "years" and which is before 1990. And I
find no indication that there was ever an actual legal problem, just a
pile of bureaucratic obstacles and paperwork shuffling.
See: "Soviets To Let Chess Master's Daughter Emigrate", Bill C. Dugovich,
Seattle Times, June 6, 1989.
Also, the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, not in 1990. Every
single factual assertion that you make about ANYTHING is suspect and
needs to be checked. See <http://www.andreas.com/berlin.html>, the
first Google hit for "Berlin wall fell", for the exact date.
Paul Rubin
> I was at many of those events, especially Dubai 1986, and never once
> did I catch them fucking.
"When their romance began at a Cuban tournament in 1985, John
Donaldson and Elena Akhmilovskaya knew they faced great
difficulties. But they were surprised when the Soviet sports
community officially reprimanded Donaldson-Akhmilovskaya for
fraternizing with foreigners. The couple persevered, and after a
three-year long-distance romance, they decided to get married last
November in Greece."
--From pawn to queen one
A former Soviet chess master moves on the Oregon Open;
Casey Bush, The Oregonian, Portland, Or.: Aug 27, 1989.
samsloan
Very well put, thank you.
Elena Akhlimovskaya, with the help of John Donalsdon, escaped from the
Soviet Union, a highly illegal and dangerous act, especially since
Greece, where the defection initiated, had a history of left-wing
governments and was not at all a reliable partner with the West.
It was amazing that they made it out. Many defectors who were
aprehended during that time were sent to the Gulags and never seen or
heard from again.
Sam Sloan
Paul Rubin
> It was amazing that they made it out. Many defectors who were
> aprehended during that time were sent to the Gulags and never seen or
> heard from again.
"Elena Akhmilovskaya had returned to the Soviet Union from her home in
Seattle on May 26 to arrange an exit visa for Dana, the seven-year-old
daughter from her first marriage.
"This couldn't have happened five years ago," she said, seated with
her family in the back of a taxi as it drove away from Heathrow
Airport. "Even now I couldn't imagine that it would be so easy to get
every paper and every document. ...
The speedy processing of Dana's passport by the Soviet authorities
will enable her mother to compete in an international tournament
beginning Saturday in Britain.
Mother and daughter arrived at Heathrow with three pieces of luggage
and a large doll."
The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Jun 16, 1989. pg. A.4
Ralf Callenberg
> Elena Akhlimovskaya, with the help of John Donalsdon, escaped from the
> Soviet Union, a highly illegal and dangerous act, especially since
> Greece, where the defection initiated, had a history of left-wing
> governments and was not at all a reliable partner with the West.
Nonsense. Greece had its problems with NATO, EC/EU and USA but it was
nowhere near of collaborating with the Soviet Union, so Greece was in
no way a problematic country when entering the West. A lot of
West-European countries have a history of "left-wing governments".
> It was amazing that they made it out. Many defectors who were
> aprehended during that time were sent to the Gulags and never seen or
> heard from again.
You are aware that we are talking about the late 80s, when Gorbachev
had already established Perestroika and Glasnost? In 1988 the Soviet
Union officially gave up the Brezhnev doctrine, practically bringing
down the Iron Curtain.
Greetings,
Ralf
Paula Lemming
And his point was that until the Berlin Wall fell, the Cold War was VERY
active. So his point is valid, and once again you try to change history and
ignore the obvious, you fudge-packing little turd.
Paula Lemming
doctrine, practically bringing down the Iron Curtain.
>
But even then, a DEFECTOR was a defector. Just because this woman was a low
priority and did not get shot or persecuted should not change the history of
defections from the Soviet Union.
Ralf Callenberg
> But even then, a DEFECTOR was a defector. Just because this woman was a low
> priority and did not get shot or persecuted should not change the history of
> defections from the Soviet Union.
At this time the Cold War was over, the Iron Curtain lifted. Several
Eastern European countries were already holding democratic elections,
had opened their borders to the west. All this happened with explicit
allowance from the Soviet leaders. To describe her leaving of the Soviet
Union as an heroic act is inappropiriate, it was more a burocratic act.
The details tell it: ordinary citizens were not shot in 1989 or were
about to be sent to Sibiria just because they wanted to leave the Soviet
Union.
Greetings,
Ralf
Ralf Callenberg
> "Paul Rubin" <> Also, the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989, not in 1990.>>
>
> And his point was that until the Berlin Wall fell, the Cold War was VERY
> active.
East Germany was one of the late socialistic countries to open its
borders. When the Wall fell, Poland had already a democratically elected
government, Hungary was officially going this route as well. East
Germans had switched to the west during summer 1989 in the thousands,
without any intervention by the Soviet Union. Soviet leaders were not
even considering to help the GDR to keep its status. The Cold War was
more or less over with the end of the Breshnev doctrine in 1988. With
this declaration, the Soviet Union gave up its strict standing against
democracy in its area of influence, and therefore the strategy of Cold
War simply didn't make any sense any more. Of course, things were not
100% sure, it was always possible, that others might have taken over
control in the USSR, going back the way. Several hardliners wanted
Gorbachev to use force to stop the Monday Demonstrations in East
Germany. But in 1989 Cold War was definitely not very active any more,
and in 1991 it was all over. With Cold War still being strong, the
peaceful fall of the Wall would simply not have been possible, its
practical end was a prerequisite for what happened on November 9th, 1989
in Berlin.
Greetings,
Ralf
samsloan
You seem to be forgetting that this happened in 1988, not in 1989.
There is a tremendous difference. In 1999 the Berlin Wall fell. Also,
to say that this woman was unimportant is not true. Chess was very
important in the USSR and she had been a World Championship candidate.
I cannot think of a more high-profile defection than Akhmilovskaya. The
few male ballet dancers who defected did so while on tour to the US.
They took no risks. Her daring escape certainly punched a hole in the
Iron Curtain, and may even have brought it down. Who can say? Perhaps
if Akhmilovskaya had not defected, the Iron Curtain would not have
fallen.
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
No, I didn't. But the world in 1988 was already a very different one
from 1984, before Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union.
> Her daring escape certainly punched a hole in the
> Iron Curtain, and may even have brought it down. Who can say? Perhaps
> if Akhmilovskaya had not defected, the Iron Curtain would not have
> fallen.
This is ridicilous and without any sense of proportions. The Iron
Curtain came down because the Soviet Union was nearly economically
collapsed and Gorbachev changed the way this country was run, in order
to prevent the complete collapse of the USSR. He officially gave all
East European countries the freedom to chose to switch away from
socialism. The democratic forces in the different countries grabbed
this opportunity, which might have been only a small gap in the course
of history. The Iron Curtain was torn down in Moscow by a leader, who
didn't seek refuge in violence, in Gdansk by people who stood up
against their government, in Leipzig and Dresden, where people flooded
the streets each monday in peaceful demonstrations, by Hungarian
officials, who let countless East-Germans pass their borders into the
west, which massively destablized the GDR; and by Hungarians who after
their uprising 30 years earlier, which had cost tens of thousands
lives, boldly took the step to a democratic government. Who cares about
a chess player crossing borders because of a romance? It is just a
small footnote in an appendix.
Greetings,
Ralf
Paula Lemming
of a romance? It is just a small footnote in an appendix.
>
It does not have to be important to be a DEFECTION. Lots of mediocre
artists, writers, and ballet stars (not just the top two) DEFECTED, and
there is probably little or no record of it anywhere; but it was still
called a DEFECTION.
Paula Lemming
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
> [...] It is by the definition of her nation, the former USSR.
> By their definition, her [Akhilovskaya's] emigration was
> illegal and therefore a Defection.
What's your point?
(In the light of the Helsinki agreement
what USSR was doing was illegal).
Wlod
Ralf Callenberg
> "Ralf Callenberg" <Who cares about a chess player crossing borders because
> of a romance? It is just a small footnote in an appendix.
>
>
> It does not have to be important to be a DEFECTION.
My remark addressed Sam's claim, that this incident might have been
important for the fall of the Iron Curtain.
> but it was still
> called a DEFECTION.
Defection or not, in 1988 it wasn't anymore an act for which you might
got shot or sent to Sibiria.
Greetings,
Ralf
Ralf Callenberg
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Donaldson_(chess_player)
>
> WIKIshitPEDIA calls it a DEFECTION.
Yes, because it was mainly written by Sam Sloan.
Greetings,
Ralf
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod)
samsloan wrote:
> Perhaps if Akhmilovskaya had not defected,
> the Iron Curtain would not have fallen.
>
> Sam Sloan
:-)))))))...)))))))
Sam, start a "Chess National Enquirer"
and stay away from encyclopedias! OK?
Wlod
Louis Blair
(→Current requests - rejected: ... Phr vs. Sam Sloan ...)
Say No To g4
so many that I've lost count. LOL
I also want to take this opportunity to thank all those who took the
time to correct Scammie's Wiki entries. It gives me great joy to
see Sloan smacked around Wikipedia and rgcp.
"Louis Blair" <lb...@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1143325343.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
11:11, 25 March 2006 Sam Korn
(?Current requests - rejected: ... Phr vs. Sam Sloan ...)
"KUNTO"
who took the
> time to correct Scammie's Wiki entries.>>
Maybe Sam will take a plane trip to the Wiki Headquarters and visit their
building in the middle of the night so that he can say that he was there. "I
have actually been to the Wiki HQ to talk to the President of the company."
not mentioning that he got there at 11 at night.
Paul Rubin
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Donaldson_(chess_player)
> > WIKIshitPEDIA calls it a DEFECTION.
>
> Yes, because it was mainly written by Sam Sloan.
The article addresses that question more thoroughly now, at the
expense of several hours of research that should not have been
necessary.
Sam Sloan also recently inserted into the article that the wedding
took place at the US Embassy in Geneva, Switzerland. That factoid,
like Peter Leko's death in a taxicab, appears to have been pure Sloan
fantasy. The press reports of the time thoroughly documented that the
wedding was in the town hall of Salonika (a/k/a Thessaloniki), Greece.
This, too, is fixed in the article now.
Sam Sloan
I hope that this decision does not make Ralf Callenberg and Paul Rubin
feel like that have been authorized to continue to vandalize and
delete all my chess biographies from Wikipedia. I think they will be
watched from now on.
Sam Sloan
Louis Blair
> I hope that this decision does not make Ralf Callenberg
> and Paul Rubin feel like that have been authorized to
> continue to vandalize and delete all my chess biographies
> from Wikipedia. I think they will be watched from now on.
_
"The edits by Rook wave look sensible to me, in general
terms, and to be anything but destructive." - Charles
Matthews (22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC))
_
_
"many of [Sam Sloan's contributions to chess articles],
especially biographies of living people lack adequate
cited sources and don't comply with a neutral point of
view. This is the reason many of his articles are trimmed
down, or deleted outright ...
_
That articles don't remain the way we created them,
and that some of the changes are ones we dislike is
something all Wikipedia editors need to live with, indeed
the editing screen says in big bold writing: 'If you don't
want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed
by others, do not submit it.'
_
... it should be noted that in very many cases consensus
has not been favorable to Sloan's revisions." - Sjakkalle
(11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
_
_
"Ater a glance at the article, and other articles written by
Sam Sloan, it became very clear to me that he was using
Wikipedia to express his point of view. The biographies he
wrote about various chess personas consisted 90 percent
of personal attacks, gossips and rants gleaned from what
he called 'reliable sources' from usenet. ... I believe that
the articles Sam Sloan writes are completely one-sided
and expressed significant biase. Rook Wave, I believe, is
correct in removing most of the attacks and rants from
these articles. The request by Sam Sloan for Rook Wave
to stop editing his articles is simply detrimental to the
well-being of Wikipedia." - Olorin28 (03:49,
21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
_
"I think Rook wave has just been NPOVing the articles
correctly and removing unsourced opinions... If anything,
ArbCom should review Sam Sloan's edits." - Sasquatch
(06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
_
"The fact that Sam Sloan's contributions are often
tendentious is a key contributory factor in their reversion
or deletion, as noted above. It is telling that Sloan's
response to this is to raise complaints about the
editors, administrators and processes which oppose
his actions, rather than to adopt a more neutral editing
style.
...
I commend to Sam Sloan the following:
_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
_
I do not believe I am alone in seeing strong evidence
of Sam Sloan extending to his Wikipedia contributions
the strong agenda he has outside of Wikipedia. The
solution is not for those who disagree with Sloan to
stop editing, it's for Sloan to stop adding tendentious
content." - Just zis Guy you know? (10:18,
21 March 2006 (UTC))
_
_
"Even if Sam Sloan were the authority he takes
himself to be, that would cut no special ice on
Wikipedia. Unsourced gossip being cut is a 'good
thing', as Sam should note well." - Charles
Matthews (18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC))
Louis Blair
> This makes Sam Sloan 0 for ?? He's lost so many
> that I've lost count.
_
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch
(The result of the debate was delete. - howcheng
20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
Sam Sloan against Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch
(soundly rejected - Dmcdevit 06:23, 11 February 2006)
_
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Tom Dorsch
(deletion endorsed - Splash 23:53, 10 March 2006)
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
Sam Sloan vs. Phr
(rejected - Sam Korn 11:11, 25 March 2006)
_
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
Sam Sloan vs. Rook wave
(rejected - Sam Korn 11:11, 25 March 2006)
_
_
Have I missed anything?