Tom Dorsch Wikipedia Controversy
Sam Sloan
I posted a biography of Tom Dorsch, the same biography I have posted
here.
Within the last two days, my biography of Dorsch has been
substantially deleted three times, on the ground that it constitutes a
personal attack.
Here is what I have written in response:
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia! Your test worked, and
has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other
tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would
like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you!
Sam Sloan 12:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the Tom Dorsch biography, you are simply wrong. If
you will go to the Usenet group rec.games.chess.politics and search
for postings by tomd...@aol.com you will find that he has posted
2680 times to that group. That is two thousand six hundred eighty
times. Tom Dorsch has written and posted extensively on such subjects
as bargirls in Tijuana. There is nothing in my biography of him that
can be considered a personal attack, especially since it is based on
what Dorsch himself wrote. In addition, Dorsch has run for election
and been elected several times to public office in chess. Thus, others
have a right to express their views. Dorsch himself is aware of this
biography can modify it himself if he disagrees. Sam Sloan 12:13, 16
December 2005 (UTC)
I would like the opinions of anybody else on this issue. The Wikipedia
biography of Dorsch is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Dorsch
but to understand what is going on you have to see the history page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Dorsch&action=history
The two people making deletions do not appear to be chess players and
are not a member of this group. One is a woman who seems to have been
involved in several other editing wars.
Sam Sloan
Chess Freak
objective peice of work and filled with speculation. More like a
work of fiction rather than a biography. You should be ashamed, Mr.
Sloan.
- CF
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message news:43a2bef4...@ca.news.verio.net...
Bret Helm
was ROTFL, but it certainly WAS a personal attack. The bio is much
more objective now. You had me laughing, though.
Sam Sloan
You obviously know little or nothing about Tom Dorsch. Why was this a
personal attack? Tom Dorsch has written extensively about whore houses
and girlie bars in Tijuana in 1963, especially about a young virgin
whore named "Charlie the Crab".
We still do not know whether Tom himself gave her that name, or
whether she was generally known by that name.
Here is a quote:
On March 16, 2000, Tom Dorsch wrote:
>Always a pleasure to bring a little culture to you. By the way how was
>Charlie the crab?
I don't know. I took the cute one, Maria.
Sam went into a dark room alone with
"Charlie the crab." He later told me it
wasn't much, but it was a damn sight better
than Norman T. Whitaker.
Maria was great!
Regards,
Tom Dorsch
Ralf Callenberg
> Within the last two days, my biography of Dorsch has been
> substantially deleted three times,
Sometimes less is more.
> The two people making deletions do not appear to be chess players and
> are not a member of this group.
On what do you base your pointless guessing? Well, I am the one who did
the first changes - and yes, actually I am a chess player, but this does
not matter anyway, as your article about Mr. Dorsch has only slightly to
do with chess. The other person is indeed no chess player, she's an
administrator which get involved after I sent a mail to Wikipedia about
your article. I was really surprised how fast these people react! And I
admire her patience.
> One is a woman who seems to have been
> involved in several other editing wars.
Yes, I suppose this happens quite often if you are an administrator of
Wikipedia. It's more or less part of the job.
Greetings,
Ralf
PS: Regarding your conversation in Wikipedia with the administrator: Tom
Dorsch is _not_, I repeat: _not_ one of the most famous chess players in
the world. Do you really think, that people outside the US chess
politics scene or this newsgroups have only the faintest idea who this
man is, or would be interested in any way? Stating, that more people
know him than Topalov is so silly, that it is almost amazing.
Sam Sloan
I see. So you are "rook wave" and you are ultimately responsible for
ALL of the attacks on my biography of Dorsch both here and on
Wikipedia.
You say that you are a chess player but, funny thing, nobody here has
ever heard of you.
And you are wrong. Tom Dorsch probably is one of the best known chess
personalities in the world. Foir starters every regular reader of this
group has heard of him. And, until Topolov won the tournament in
Argentina a few weeks ago, more people probably had heard of Dorsch
than had heard of Topolov.
More importantly, you are wrong in your assertion that just because
nobody outside of chess would know or care about Tom Dorsch
disqualifies him from having a biography on Wikipedia. Here are the
published criterea by Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It
illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in
principle. However, it is not policy. Feel free to update the page as
needed, but please use the discussion page to propose any major
changes.
Notability guidelines
Shortcut:
WP:BIO
WP:PROF
Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia includes biographies of important
historical figures and people involved in current events. Even though
wiki is not paper, there are some criteria which may be considered for
inclusion.
See also Wikipedia:Importance, which attempts to be a generic, all
inclusive definition of criteria for inclusion.
* Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is
part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?
People still alive
Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This
list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia
on people who do not fall under any of these categories, but there is
no intention to delete them all.
* Political figures holding international, national or
statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or
provincial legislature.
* Major local political figures who receive significant press
coverage
* Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers
* Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or
a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional
sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including
college sports in the United States. Articles about first team squad
members who have not made a first team appearance may also be
appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient
stature that most members of its squad already have articles.
* Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in
well-known films or television productions. Notability can be
determined by:
o Multiple features in popular culture publications such as
Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
o A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
o An independent biography
o Name recognition
o Commercial endorsements
* Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written
books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a
circulation of 5,000 or more
* Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in
newsworthy events
[edit]
As can be seen, Tom Dorsch qualifies under several of these criterea.
Incidentally, I was asked by several people to write his biography and
I resisted doing so for a long time. But now that I have done it, I
think that just about everybody here with the exception of yourself
will agree that Tom Dorsch easily meets the standard.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
I just want to say dumb stupid things so people can keep talking about
me. I need people to pay attention to me.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
<ralf.ca...@web.de> wrote:
> Stating, that more people
>know him than Topalov is so silly, that it is almost amazing.
I just did a Google search. First I searched for Topolov chess. There
were 471 sites using those words.
Then, I searched for Tom Dorsch chess. That returned 682 hits.
Therefore, I have proven that Tom Dorsch is 40% better known than
World Chess Champion Topolov.
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
>
> I just did a Google search. First I searched for Topolov chess. There
> were 471 sites using those words.
Man, you are just ignorant. The current FIDE world champion is called
"Topalov", not "Topolov". And if you enter "Veselin Topalov", you get
70000 hits.
>
> Then, I searched for Tom Dorsch chess. That returned 682 hits.
>
> Therefore, I have proven that Tom Dorsch is 40% better known than
> World Chess Champion Topolov.
Bullshit.
Greetings,
Ralf
Chess One
On some other business, I just googled Judit Polgar, and received 245,000
references.
while googling I found
286,000 hits on "Capablanca"
1,800,000 on 'Sam Sloan"
131,000 for "Kosteniuk"
11,900,000 for "Tony Miles" <---- NB
3,315,00 for "Nigel Short"
275,000 for "Gary Kasparov"
445,000 for "Garry Kasparov"
2,010,000 for "Kasparov"
296,000 for 'Topalov"
81,500 for "Tom Dorsch"
558,000 for "Phil Innes"
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
> You say that you are a chess player but, funny thing, nobody here has
> ever heard of you.
The degree to which you see yourself placed in the center of the chess
world, is really astonishing. There are about 100000 chess players alone
in the German Chess Federation, and I think aobut 80000 in the USCF, I
would guess some million tournament players around the world. Of how
many of them have you ever heard of?
> And you are wrong. Tom Dorsch probably is one of the best known chess
> personalities in the world. Foir starters every regular reader of this
> group has heard of him.
This group (or these groups, as this is a cross posting) is just a tiny
fraction of the chess world. How many read these groups more or less
regularly? A few hundreds maybe.
> And, until Topolov won the tournament in
> Argentina a few weeks ago, more people probably had heard of Dorsch
> than had heard of Topolov.
This is rubbish. Maybe you didn't know him (and just for the records:
this man is called Topalov). Veselin Topalov has been one of the
strongest players in the world since the late 90s. He is well known and
admired for his spectacular chess and has won some first class
tournaments in the past. A few month before the world championship, he
won Linares together with Kasparov, whom he has beaten in the last
round. He was the defeated side in one of the most famous, most
discussed and most analysed games of chess of the last 10 years (his
game 1999 in Wijk aan Zee against Kasparov). If you picked up a chess
magazine somewhere on this planet in the last 10 years, you very likely
have read his name. He didn't go to the tournament in Argentina as an
outsider, but together with Anand as one of the top favorites. And his
performance there, especially in the first half of this tournament,
already entered the realms of chess history.
What has Tom Dorsch achieved to be known in England, Germany, France or
Russia?
That you regard some local chess politician as more important than one
of the strongest players of our days, tells more about your view on the
world, than the actual importance of these people. Do you think, that
many participants of these groups happen to know the name of the last
treasurer of the German Chess Federation? Or of the British Chess
Federation? Or the Russion Chess Federation? They don't know? They don't
care? So, why should anybody care who Tom Dorsch is?
> As can be seen, Tom Dorsch qualifies under several of these criterea.
> Incidentally, I was asked by several people to write his biography and
> I resisted doing so for a long time. But now that I have done it, I
> think that just about everybody here with the exception of yourself
> will agree that Tom Dorsch easily meets the standard.
Well, maybe there is a place for him in Wikipedia. But certainly not
such a bunch of silly personal trivia you have put into it.
Greetings,
Ralf
sl...@journalist.com
fucked more virgins than him too. Dorsch is more famous than Topalov.
Goichberg is more famous than Bessel Kok. Are you doubting me? My
criminal records proves that I'm the most qualified person in chess.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
You obviously do not know whom you are addressing. I personally know
Mr. Topalov. I met him at the 2000 World Chess Olympiad in Istanbul. I
personally know the President of the British Chess Federation. I
personally know the President of the German Chess Federation. I
personally knew the President of the Russian Chess Federation. I meet
them at FIDE Congresses and Olympiads which I attend. If you ask any
of these people about me, they will tell you that they know me and
will tell you something about me.
One person who I do not know however is Ralf Callenberg ("Rook Wave").
You say that there are a million tournament chess players in the world
and you might be one of the million. You feel that this gives you the
right to delete my biography of Tom Dorsch. I feel that you do not
have that right. My articles have been published in chess magazines
around the world. Everybody has heard of me. Nobody has heard of you.
I am not attacking Tom Dorsch. Actually, I am defending Tom Dorsch. If
you want to make a contribution, write your own article, but do not
vandalize, delete or erase mine.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
ever heard of the expression: "Who needs enemies if you have friends
like me?" I already succeeded in getting your petty attention if you
read my posts. I know all these people but I can assure you that none
of them know me. They all thought I was a beggar from the street.
That's why they called security. Now go away you German twerp.
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
> You obviously do not know whom you are addressing.
Hey man, I even know, that you have proven with a DNA test, that you are
the father of your daughter! You are an internet-exhibitionist who finds
himself so immensively important, that he is telling the world about all
the details of his life, so it's not difficult to find out, whom I am
adressing. And I have to say: I am not overly impressed, sorry.
> I personally know
> Mr. Topalov. I met him at the 2000 World Chess Olympiad in Istanbul.
Then you might learn to spell his name.
> I
> personally know the President of the British Chess Federation. I
> personally know the President of the German Chess Federation. I
> personally knew the President of the Russian Chess Federation. I meet
> them at FIDE Congresses and Olympiads which I attend. If you ask any
> of these people about me, they will tell you that they know me and
> will tell you something about me.
Maybe. But I didn't ask whether you know those people, I asked if you
think that the readers of this group know the treasures of those
federations. Or are all of the readers always together with you at the
FIDE congresses and Chess Olympiades? That you are overly fascinated by
chess politics is obvious. But if you think, that many players share
this fetish, you are wrong.
> One person who I do not know however is Ralf Callenberg ("Rook Wave").
> You say that there are a million tournament chess players in the world
> and you might be one of the million.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. I am a chess player. You doubted it
because you never heard of me. And this obviously has been a very silly
remark.
> You feel that this gives you the
> right to delete my biography of Tom Dorsch.
Yep. Absolutely. (Although to be precise, I didn't delete it, just
changed it.) Nobody has more or less rights to alter entries in
Wikipedia (except maybe administrators, they are a bit more equal than
the rest).
> I feel that you do not
> have that right.
Luckily, you are not the one to decide this. If you don't want your
articles changed - don't put them into Wikipedia.
> My articles have been published in chess magazines
> around the world. Everybody has heard of me.
No. I am afraid you are wrong here, too. You might have met some people,
you might have written some articles. But the average chess player on
this planet has not the faintest idea who you are, and he might not even
know, why he should care about you.
> Nobody has heard of you.
Well, the one or other has. Not many, ok, but 'nobody' is definitely too
few.
> I am not attacking Tom Dorsch. Actually, I am defending Tom Dorsch.
Strange idea of defending somebody, by putting the fact, he didn't pay
his rents in 1962 and wrote uncoverd cheques into an encyclopaedia. I
hope nobody ever gets the idea to defend me in a similar way!
So now, you still missed the opportunity to explain, why somebody should
know Tom Dorsch. You have spent some time now, explaining your own very
importance, and you spent a lot of words in the Wikipedia article about
all the personal specialities of Tom Dorsch. But everything the reader
of this article gets to know, is that Mr. Dorsch was the treasurer of
the USCF for a few years, that he was twice president of the
Californian chess association and that he played some college
tournaments in the 60s. Imagine a reader of this article: how could he
get by those spare information an idea of the fame of Mr. Dorsch around
the globe, which carried his name to every chess club from Sao Paolo to
Helsinki, so that you can go to any tournament in southern France, pick
a player and ask him: "Do you know Tom Dorsch?" and he might answer "Mai
oui! He fucked around in Tijuana and didn't pay his rent to Sam Sloan,
THE Sam Sloan."
> If
> you want to make a contribution, write your own article, but do not
> vandalize, delete or erase mine.
You simply didn't get the idea of Wikipedia. I made my contribution. I
removed all your silly personal rantings (which is more than 90% of the
article, but this was not my fault). And as you changed them back, I
informed Wikipedia so they might have a look at it, that's all. The rest
I leave to the poor administrator who is going to take care of your self
important rubbish.
Greetings,
Ralf
Sam Sloan
insult my intelligence? Why do you insult my logic?
It's not nice to insult a loser like me. You need to feel sorry for me.
After all, I'm just a loser in life. Everyone knows I lie for money.
Now you can put that it my Wikipedia profile.
Sam Sloan
Paul Rubin
> As can be seen, Tom Dorsch qualifies under several of these criterea.
Which ones?
Jimbo
approves of such juvenile behavior? Or do punks like this get their way
because everybody is afraid of pissing them off?
<sl...@journalist.com> wrote in message
news:1134833617.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Major Cat
>
> Why don't more people speak up against this punk? Is it because everybody
> approves of such juvenile behavior? Or do punks like this get their way
> because everybody is afraid of pissing them off?
Boredom with life may be one of the
reasons. When it comes to a choice
between an exchange of ideas and an
exchange of insults, well, you know
what the "manly" thing to do is. Too
few real wars, too much testosterone,
too much frustration and so on...
>
> <sl...@journalist.com> wrote in message
> news:1134833617.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > That shows how stupid you are Ralf. I'm more famous than Ilyumzhinov. I
> > fucked more virgins than him too. Dorsch is more famous than Topalov.
> > Goichberg is more famous than Bessel Kok. Are you doubting me? My
> > criminal records proves that I'm the most qualified person in chess.
> >
> > Sam Sloan
> >
Regards,
Major Cat
Sam Sloan
have this morning vandalized the entire Tom Dorsch article, removing
almost everything except that he was once a professional poker player.
Go take a look and please advise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Dorsch
Sam Sloan
Chess Freak
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message news:43a6befd....@ca.news.verio.net...
Bravo, Ralf, we (the majority of chess players) applaud your decision.
Thanks for smacking down Sam Sloan, it was fun watching you destroy his
arguments. I pity anyone who reads a Sam Sloan post/article and considers
it factual or correct. My view on Sam Sloan is one of comedic relief,
not someone to take seriously.
-CF
Bret Helm
>personal attack? Tom Dorsch has written extensively about whore houses
>and girlie bars in Tijuana in 1963, especially about a young virgin
>whore named "Charlie the Crab".
Hm...a virgin whore. Now THAT's interesting if not entirely possible!
Ralf Callenberg
> Rook wave in Germany and somebody named JoanneB in the Netherlands
> have this morning vandalized the entire Tom Dorsch article, removing
> almost everything except that he was once a professional poker player.
I didn't remove anything after my first edits a few days ago. Please
stay to the facts. What I did, I asked for a vote for deletion. If you
have got a problem with the changes by JoanneB, discuss it on
Wikipedia, don't whine in this group. You are simply ignoring the
criticisms by several Wikipedia admins. If you want to keep it "your"
article, just follow the advices and remove all personal rantings. OK,
this would be more than 90% of the original article...
Is there really nothing you have to say about Tom Dorsch, except things
like "he didn't pay his rents in 1962" and his feuds he faught with
other people? Man, this is stuff from the kindergarten.
You said, Tom Dorsch is well known. Try to tell in the article "why"
this is the case, for what is he well known outside these newsgroups,
what were his achievements. Try to look at this article as somebody who
just wants to know about a guy called "Tom Dorsch". Don't you think,
you are required to give him an idea, why Tom Dorsch is notable in the
first place? If you can't do this, what is the purpose of this article
at all?
Do you really think, that somebody, who doesn't know Tom Dorsch and
looks him up in the Wikipedia, wants to know, that this man knew whores
in Tijuana in the 60s and walked into your apartment minutes after JFK
has been shot?
Greetings,
Ralf
Ralf Callenberg
> Thanks for smacking down Sam Sloan,
it's not my intention to smack this man, it's more a collateral damage.
I am just annoyed that this sort of stuff gets into Wikipedia. It would
be another example of the poor quality of articles - and it ridicules
chess players as strange fellows, who are more interested in the
personal curiosities of functionaries than in the game itself, or at
least the players. (Could you imagine a somebody calling himsel a
basketball expert, who regards a College-League referee as more popular
than Kobe Bryant, and writes a Wikipedia entry about this referee twice
the size of the star's entry?)
But I admit, now I am very curious where all this will lead to.
Greetings,
Ralf
Sam Sloan
morning. It is posted at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
Rook wave, who posts here as
Ralf Callenberg <ralf.ca...@web.de>
is arguing hard that the entire Tom Dorsch biography should be
deleted.
So far there are two votes to keep. Based on past experience, there
will be a lot move votes cast, probably at least 15 or 20.
None of the people debating this issue are known chess players. It is
interesting to read what people who do not play chess think about
chess players.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Please vote on Wikipedia to trash Tom Dorsch please.
Sam Sloan
Nick
> Sam Sloan wrote:
> > (snipped)
> > As can be seen, Tom Dorsch qualifies under several of these criterea.
> > Incidentally, I was asked by several people to write his biography and
> > I resisted doing so for a long time. But now that I have done it, I
> > think that just about everybody here with the exception of yourself
> > will agree that Tom Dorsch easily meets the standard.
>
> Well, maybe there is a place for him in Wikipedia. But certainly
> not such a bunch of silly personal trivia you have put into it.
Has Sam Sloan mentioned the fact that Tom Dorsch's a USCF master?
It's true that being a USCF master seems insignificant by world
standards, but it's a distinction that Sam Sloan never has achieved.
--Nick
Sam Sloan
The rules as posted at [[Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion]] clearly state
that you may edit an article while an AFD is pending, but you may not
blank it. By deleting all but three meaningless sentences,
[[User:JoanneB]] has effectively blanked the article. There are good
reasons for the Wikipedia Rule. One is that by blanking the article,
those who vote on AFD will not know what they are voting for. Indeed,
anybody looking at the article as it stands now will not understand
why the subject is notable or even why this biography is on Wikipedia.
It is also noteworthy that [[User:Rook_wave]], the person calling for
this article to be deleted, is in Germany and JoanneB is in the
Netherlands. What would happen is an American user called for the
biography of a German football player to be deleted?
Accordingly, I am reverting the article to the way it was when Rook
wave first posted the AFD and I am posting a warning on the user page
of JoanneB.
Ralf Callenberg
>It is
> interesting to read what people who do not play chess think about
> chess players.
Indeed, as most people reading Wikipedia are not chess players.
Greetings,
Ralf Callenberg
Sam Sloan
site and added a paragraph or two or even a sentence about Tom Dorsch.
Also, please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
and vote to keep. Right now the same three prople are over and over
again demanding that the article be deleted. One person even said that
Dorsch being treasurer of the USCF was comparable to being the
treasurer of a bowling league.
You may not agree with my biography, but I think you will agree that
Dorsch is worthy of a biography.
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
> What would happen is an American user called for the
> biography of a German football player to be deleted?
Simple. 6 million members of the German football association would vote
for keep and the German government would start building the V-3.
Greetings,
Ralf
Chess One
Kalmykia, Sri Krishna Kirsan, the Buddhist dictator of that country and of
Fide, decided that Fide owned the game scores. This was news to the legal
world, the delegates, and the players, and since Ronald Reagan wasn't
President at the time the US couldn't send the gunboats since that would
require porting them overland some considerable distance - and there weren't
enough gunboats anyway, all the money having been spent on a missile defence
system...
So my Russian friend /bought/ the game scores, and sent them to me. I
forwarded them to Tom Dorsch with a note which donated them to USCF to use
freely.
This effectively brought Kirsan's caper to an end.
At that time Tom [who frequently wrote in this forum] wore a camel-coloured
coat jacket, and refused to notice my
jokes about it for the next 3 years.
What is missing from Sam's bio-blog is the essential set of circumstances
that USCF would have been dead as a doornail 7 years ago if Tom Dorsch had
not been obnoxious!
He, more than somewhat acerbically, insisted that the institution was
financially bleeding to death. Even his political opponents agreed that he
would have been the next USCF president if he had not campaigned on the very
strange finances at that time [just as strange, dear viewer, as the current
finances], and his actions forced the attention of the board and delegates
on the imminent collapse of the whole shebang.
He was a USCF politician who was at the same time a strong fiscal
conservative, and also someone who thought the institution needed a radical
overall before it 'went south' and was reduced to some mumchance shadow of
itself, useless to one and all.
In other words, he was a heretic and a successful prophet of Doom.
His buddy Eade was a political ally on the board, but philosophically not on
the same page. Dorsch for example was all for conferencing with top players
on 'what furthers us' but Eade, charged with a Fide role, fought the
players, to the extent of telling Seirawan to 'fuck off' over the issue of
drug testing. He also ignored the East coast by 'answering' GM Benjamin's
concerns in CL with a 'Leave it to Beaver, you really don't know what you're
talking about' printed piece.
This situation brought about the remarkable situation of the
'representative' of USCF at Fide being at odds with the delegates [who had
clearly said 'no' to drug testing] /and/ with the players, who, as above,
were not encouraged to air their 'silly' views either. This situation was
perhaps the last straw which broke the trust of any top players wishing to
be 'represented' by USCF. After this, USCF politics became increasingly
estranged from any constituency's representation.
Dorsch did not support any of these actions by Eade, and instead blew the
whistle on very strange financial goings on, old-boyism, and a form of
pork-barrel politics. Dorsch and I didn't agree on everything, but he had a
fine analytical mind and despised political cronyism.
Phil Innes
20th December, 2005
Ralf Callenberg
> You may not agree with my biography, but I think you will agree that
> Dorsch is worthy of a biography.
My objection to your article is mainly, that it is complete crap. Other
people from Wikipedia, who have no relation to you, had no bias against
or in favour of you, only read this article, came to the same
conclusion. Even those, who didn't vote for deletion make it very
clear, that they regard your contributions as mostly unusable.
Currently there are 9 opinions. They fall into two groups: delete this
junk or rewrite the article completely. Nobody came up with the
statement, that the original article posted by you was by any means
appropriate for the Wikipedia.
I think, if there would be an article about Tom Dorsch it should be
completely re-written by somebody else. So if somebody regards Tom
Dorsch as worth mentioning in Wikipedia and cares about it, he indeed
should create this article from scratch.
Greetings,
Ralf
Major Cat
>
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> > You may not agree with my biography, but I think you will agree that
> > Dorsch is worthy of a biography.
>
> My objection to your article is mainly, that it is complete crap.
I would like to introject something that
could be viewed as tangential to the focus
of this thread. For obvious reasons, you
are familiar with a culture that has
produced quite a few notable philosophers
of history, social thinkers and critics.
Societal democratization and its attendant
egalitarian massification are pillars of
contemporary Western (and globalist) Zeit-
geist. Fifty years ago, a statement like
"well, Mr. President, _my_ personal soap
opera is as important as _yours_" would
have sounded almost crazy. These days, it
would not raise that many eyebrows...
In academic life, including the discipline
of history, ever increasing specialization
and unrelenting focusing on minutia seems to
be the rule. Is it any wonder that contemporary
society cannot get enough of trivia?
A frequent contributor to these newsgroups
has come up with the "1/x rule". If I may be
permitted, I had the temerity to generalize
it. Thus, If one is to "remember" _one_ opening
move, well, let it be 1. e4. What is a bit bet-
ter may be, say, 1. e4 c5 and so on. Deep opening
lines these days may run 60-ply deep...
By analogy, once upon a time, one or two aspects
of Capablanca's or Alekhine's personal lives _may_
have received _passing_ attention. These days the
"audience" craves baroque...narratives. By
comparison, deep opening lines are beautiful
in the sense of Plato... 8>)
Excuse the intrusion.
> Other
> people from Wikipedia, who have no relation to you, had no bias against
> or in favour of you, only read this article, came to the same
> conclusion. Even those, who didn't vote for deletion make it very
> clear, that they regard your contributions as mostly unusable.
> Currently there are 9 opinions. They fall into two groups: delete this
> junk or rewrite the article completely. Nobody came up with the
> statement, that the original article posted by you was by any means
> appropriate for the Wikipedia.
>
> I think, if there would be an article about Tom Dorsch it should be
> completely re-written by somebody else. So if somebody regards Tom
> Dorsch as worth mentioning in Wikipedia and cares about it, he indeed
> should create this article from scratch.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf
Regards,
Major Cat
Sam Sloan
My name is Sam Sloan. I'm a fucking moron. I like to alienate people. I
like to insult people. I like to lie. I like to fuck minors and
virgins. I'm a total loser. Most of the time, I'm homeless. My wife
refuses to fuck me unless I pay her $1,000 each time. I'm sorry for
being a pain in your asses.
Sam Sloan
Major Cat
>
> My name is Sam Sloan.
It does not really matter. Say you are
John Q. Public...
> I'm a fucking moron.
This may be the entertainment of choice
when it comes to the "audience"!
> I like to alienate people.
They are already alienated to the maximum
possible degree. No harm done...
> I like to insult people.
John Q. Public _is_ the "people". One
insulting himself may be viewed as
somewhat humorous!
> I like to lie.
It is called generalized relativism...
> I like to fuck minors and virgins.
Generalized paedophilia seems to be
an integral part of the Zeitgeist!
> I'm a total loser.
And a total _winner_. John Q. Public
_rules_ the societal roost almost by
definition.
> Most of the time, I'm homeless.
John Q. Public does not need a home.
The entire world is his...oyster! 8>)
> My wife
> refuses to fuck me unless I pay her $1,000 each time.
It is no different from most other
_exchange transactions_ in modernity!
> I'm sorry for
> being a pain in your asses.
Please do not be. It is self-
inflicted and, consequently, lots
of fun...
>
> Sam Sloan
Thank you for persevering!
Major Cat
P.S. As a feline, I have to say that
human psychology and sociology are
_so_ fascinating to me...
Chess Freak
decision(s). Keep up the good work! Actually this is the first I've
heard of Wikipedia, and shall be making a donation to it shortly.
- CF
"Ralf Callenberg" <ralf.ca...@web.de> wrote in message news:1135012793....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
pinnoch...@hotmail.com
> This "biography" is filled with personal attacks! It is not a very
> objective peice of work and filled with speculation. More like a
> work of fiction rather than a biography. You should be ashamed, Mr.
> Sloan.
i agree. That profile is nothing but garbage.
Sam Sloan
Where did you get the name Pinnochio from?
Sam Sloan
wrote:
This is a very good article. Excellent. One of the best I have ever
seen.
I especially liked the part about how Ronald Reagan did not have a
enough gunboats to get those game scored from Kalmykia, so you had to
call in Tom Dorsch instead.
You would perform a great service if you would drop your entire
article into the Tom Dorsch Wikipedia page.
Just go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Dorsch
Then click on "edit this page" at the top.
Then just paste this article in somewhere and save.
I cannot do this myself, so I would be most thankful if you would do
it.
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
> This is a very good article.
[...]
> You would perform a great service if you would drop your entire
> article into the Tom Dorsch Wikipedia page.
It's indeed a nice read, but not very specific about Tom Dorsch, so it
wouldn't fit there, even when the satiristic parts are removed. But I
assume Phil is aware of this.
Greetings,
Ralf
Chess One
I have been criticed elsewhere for not pointing out that Tom Dorsch
previously called Bill Goichberg a 'white collar criminal', for which he had
to apologise. This was written as an attempt to deflate the importance of
Dorsch's action [he had been 'wrong' before because of his manner] and to
negate the importance of noticing that USCF was 'bleeding out'.
That's the Disney version folks. Its true that Dorsch had to apologise to
Goichberg for his comment, but also true...
OTOH - I was at the board and delegates meeting in New Windsor where Dorsch
forced the issue onto the agenda, [that means there had been resistance to
publically airing it] and successions of delegates clearly in shock came out
of the meeting to the patio speaking to the air 'financial crisis, what
crisis?' then laughing to themselves like lunatics.
This took a bit of explaining to 3 guests with me the time [inc 2 Russians]
at least one of
whom thought I had taken them to a lunatic asylum by mistake.
I never met X there but Sam Sloan was in attendance. I have no [public]
knowledge of how accurate other matters were, since of course all other
issues
were publically suppressed -and do not insinuate that Tom Dorsch was correct
about them, just because he was correct about an at least $100,000 shortfall
in 6 months [not revenue shortfall, but P&L]
X says Tom Dorsch's insistent alarm in pointing out the boat was sinking
kept board members and the ED from reading their own P&L statements. Dorsch
was reporting to the board as Treasurer.
Of course it was Dorsch's fault that his own sense of alarm was not
expressed on one of the cuter Hallmark cards, as is apparently the typical
procedure, and the rest of the board had no responsibility for finances -
not even to the extent of reading the Treasurer's report. <--Disney Version.
Dorsch's own expressions on the subject were more Ä… point. <--Spike Lee
version.
;)
Phil Innes
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
The vote is nearly 100% to delete my diography of Tom Dorsch on the
grounds that he is not a notable person. All of the voters are unknown
persons.
I need your help to keep this biography from being deleted altogether.
Please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
Click on "edit this page" at the top.
Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
kept.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
> Help is desperately needed.
>
> The vote is nearly 100% to delete my diography of Tom Dorsch on the
> grounds that he is not a notable person.
Not all hope is lost! You don't understand the process. This is not a
poll. At the end some administrator will have a look at what has been
said and make a decision. He is absolutely not bound to take the vote by
the majority.
> All of the voters are unknown
> persons.
There are many thousands of people participating in Wikipedia, of course
you don't know them all.
> Then, go to the bottom of the page and write "KEEP" forrowed by
> whatever reasons you have for feeling that this biography should be
> kept.
It is explicitely described: opinions by anonymous users or those who
have registered solely for the vote are not as highly regarded. I doubt,
that this would make a big difference, but people can try it anyway of
course.
Greetings,
Ralf
Jürgen R.
wrote:
Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.
Ralf Callenberg
>
> Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.
As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.
First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap. The question is
just: complete rewrite or delete. You call the author "psychopath", so
how credential is you claim, that who he is writing about, is irrelevant?
That's usually the trick with bold and open ad hominem attacks: most of
the time they fire back on the originator, make their other statements
less convincing.
Greetings,
Ralf
Sam Sloan
<ralf.ca...@web.de> wrote:
>Jürgen R. wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.
>
>As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.
>
>First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
>article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap.
Nobody but you has said that the article is crap, and you do not know
Tom Dorsch.
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
>>First, this is not about the author, but about the subject of this
>>article. Nobody denies, that the article itself is crap.
>
>
> Nobody but you has said that the article is crap,
Did you read the comments by the others in that discussion? Some quotes:
"I don't think it's nescessary to keep the article in it's old form for
a week longer,"
"POV junk and attacks" (by somebody who voted keep)
"I call for a delete and a complete rewrite after the delete has been done"
"I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack. It seems to me,
an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he won even more,
he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out the whorehouses
and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a personal attack"
"sorry state of the article"
> and you do not know Tom Dorsch.
Yes indeed. But I do not have to know Tom Dorsch, I do not even have to
be a chess player in order to realize, that what you have written is
complete rubbish and absolutely inappropriate for an entry in an
encyclopedia. You still didn't get the point of the criticism against
this article, I am afraid you will never get. But this is your problem,
not mine.
Greetings,
Ralf
Randy Bauer
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
news:43ac06c9...@ca.news.verio.net...
I know Tom Dorsch. The article is crap.
Randy Bauer
Sam Sloan
<ralf.ca...@web.de> wrote:
Here is what Jurgen wrote and posted on Wikipedia:
"DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a
psychopath who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (Ju"rgen R.)"
Jurgen is relatively new to the chess discussion groups, but
nevertheless I cannot believe that he really thinks that Tom Dorsch is
a " unknown and irrelevant person".
It is because of comments like this that the article is in danger of
being deleted.
Both Jurgen and Ralf Callenberg a/k/a "Rook wave" are posting here
from Germany, so they should get along well together.
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
<randyba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>news:43ac06c9...@ca.news.verio.net...
>> Nobody but you has said that the article is crap, and you do not know
>> Tom Dorsch.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>I know Tom Dorsch. The article is crap.
>
>Randy Bauer
Since you feel that way, kindly point to one statement in the article
which you feel is inaccurate or untrue.
Surely, if you know Tom Dorsch, there must be some point to the
article which you feel could be corrected or improved.
Have you ever met Tom Dorsch?
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
crap. I agree with the deletion.
Sam Sloan
Ralf Callenberg
>
> It is because of comments like this that the article is in danger of
> being deleted.
No, it's because of the article itself.
> Both Jurgen and Ralf Callenberg a/k/a "Rook wave" are posting here
> from Germany, so they should get along well together.
Well, I think it was you, who said, Tom Dorsch is known in the whole
world. Obviously it is not true.
Honestly, I really don't care about American chess functionaries at all
(I hardly care about German). But the Wikipedia is not American, it is
international, the readers come from all over the planet.
Would you please consider, that such an article is not just for regular
and year long readers of this newsgroup, but mostly for people, who
don't know Tom Dorsch - like me?
And what did they get to know as most remarkable facts about him? That
he went along with whores in Tijuana and didn't pay his rent somewhere
in the 60s. Only when wading through piles of gossip you can get some
facts, as small as they are. There is exactly zero information in this
article, why this man has an article in the first place. See, there is
an article about Eric Schiller. Somebody who doesn't know him, gets the
information that he has written a lot of books. So, he gets an idea,
what this person is about. You get not tired of repeating over and over,
how important Tom Dorsch is. Why the fuck, don't you write about his
merits just at the beginning of his article? Give the reader an idea,
why Tom Dorsch is not only known to you and the readers of this newsgroup.
Greetings,
Ralf
Sam Sloan
ground that Dorsch is not a notable person. In response to a comment
that Dorsch being the Treasurer of the USCF made him about as notable
as the treasurer of a national bowling league, Bill Brock posted the
following:
Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be
more notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Bill Brock is the first known chess player to cast a vote to delete. I
was not previously aware that Brock disliked Dorsch. We need for some
more real chess players to vote to keep the article.
To vote to keep the biography, please go to
Sam Sloan
I have to respect Bill Brock's wish. He's right. Tom Dorsch's profile
should be deleted at once.
Sam Sloan
Paul Rubin
> Nobody but you has said that the article is crap, and you do not know
> Tom Dorsch.
I know Dorsch and the article is crap.
The Historian
Same here.
The Historian
> Jürgen R. wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks for the link. I just voted to delete.
>
> As you mainly gave an ad hominem attack, this was not very effective.
How was that not an accurate description of Sloan?
Ralf Callenberg
> How was that not an accurate description of Sloan?
This vote is not about Sam Sloane, but about the article about Tom
Dorsch. In this context it simply doesn't matter who or what Sam Sloan is.
Greetings,
Ralf
The Historian
Nonsense. Knowing what Sloan is helps the reader judge the article.
> Greetings,
> Ralf
>
Ralf Callenberg
>>
>> This vote is not about Sam Sloane, but about the article about Tom
>> Dorsch. In this context it simply doesn't matter who or what Sam Sloan
>> is.
>
>
> Nonsense. Knowing what Sloan is helps the reader judge the article.
No you are completely wrong. The article speaks for himself, and he
should do so.
I am sure, the administrators don't care who Sam Sloan is. They just
look at the article and the subject of it. You just have to imagine you
are somebody who doesn't know Sam Sloan or Tom Dorsch and reads this
article and has to decide what to do. Then some other guy, probably
unregistered user, just pops up and claims that the author is a
psychopath. Why should you believe him? Maybe he has his own quarrel
with him, you don't know about. At least I would give shit about what
others say about the author, if I had to judge a text. And if other
opinions are provided by people who obviosly have a bias against the
author, I would be very sceptic about any judgement they offer.
Greetings,
Ralf
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Sam Sloan
Tom Dorsch
User:Howcheng who admitted that he knew nothing about the subject
matter of this article, which was chess, deleted my highly acclaimed
and popular article about Tom Dorsch, who is one of the best known
chess players in the world. Ever since, any time anybody does not like
one of my articles, they write to User:Howcheng and he continues to
harass me.
Prior to being deleted, my article on Tom Dorsch was modified by a
dozen different editors who in some cases added more information.
Therefore, I cannot simply reinstate the article I wrote. I need to
recover what everybody else contributed.
In addition, User:Howcheng showed his utter ignorance of the people
involved, with the following statement:
"User:Sam Sloan is free to request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV.
I suppose I did not need to make the snarky comment about meatpuppets,
but Mr Sloan clearly does not understand AfD is not a vote."
However, it is rather User:Howcheng who does not understand. Here is
what User:Howcheng wrote at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
"The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for
deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005
(UTC)"
His reference to "meatpuppets" clearly referred to Randy Bauer. This
is the problem when User:Howcheng intervenes not knowing the subject
matter. Randy Bauer was the Budget Director of the State of Iowa. He
ran against me for election to the USCF Executive Board. Here are the
results of the election on July 22, 2005 (which can be found through
an Internet search): Randy Bauer 1591 Sam Sloan 1064
The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair, an Internet gadfly
who attacks me all the time. In addition, User:Rook_wave, who made the
deletion request, voted six times for deletion, and User:Billbrock who
put me on a list of Pedophiles in Wikipedia voted three times for
deletion. At the same time, there were a number of famous
International Chess Masters and chess personalities who voted to keep
the article. If you discount the six votes by Rook wave, the three
votes by Billbrock and the other votes by persons who clearly dislike
me or Dorsch, then a majority voted to keep the article.
The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly
wrong. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable
person. The fact that some people dislike me or dislike Tom Dorsch is
not a proper grounds for deletion. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I need an order of protection telling [[User:Howcheng}} to stay from
my articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4
March 2006 (UTC)
Say No To g4
> In addition, User:Howcheng showed his utter ignorance of the people
> involved, with the following statement:
>
User:Howcheng showed good judgment in deleting the Tom Dorsch diatribe
as submiited by Scam Sloan.
>
> The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair, an Internet gadfly
Pot calling the kettle black.
> The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly
> wrong.
The act by User:Howcheng to delete your Tom Dorsch article was clearly
right.
Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable
> person.
Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is not a notable
person - just a former USCF functionary.
>
> I need an order of protection telling [[User:Howcheng}} to stay from
> my articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4
> March 2006 (UTC)
I wish User:Howcheng continued success in deleting Scam Sloan's garbage
from Wikipedia.
Sam Sloan
Add new conflicts at the bottom. Use short (one line), neutral
descriptions, and provide links to locations where more information is
available. Do not sign your name, but add a date (using "~~~~~" - five
tildes). Please do not discuss the disagreement on this page.
It will help if everyone who lists something here weighs in on another
disagreement.
Listings that do not follow instructions may be removed.
User:Howcheng made an unprovoked personal attack by calling my
political opponents my "meatpuppets". See
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch By calling Randy Bauer, who
was the Budget Director of the State of Iowa, my "meatpuppet", he
insulted him. Had User:Howcheng spent just five minutes searching the
Internet, he would have found that Randy Bauer was my election
opponent for the Executive Board of the United States Chess
Federation. Randy Bauer got about 1500 votes, I received 1051 votes.
Based upon his claim that Randy Bauer was my "meatpuppet",
User:Howcheng blanked my biography of Tom Dorsch. Tom Dorsch is one of
the best known chess personalities in the world and is far better
known than most of the persons who have biographies posted on
Wikipedia.
Because of User:Howcheng doing this, I stopped posting content for
three months. Finally last night, I posted a new biography, and less
than ten minutes later User:Howcheng threatened to block me.
So, User:Howcheng violated two Wikipedia rules. First, he called a
person who ran against me for election my "meatpuppet" and then he
completely blanked and erased the history of a person who is one of
the best known chess players in the world.
Since User:Howcheng has done this repeatedly over a long period of
time, I am asking that he be reprimanded and told to stay away from my
articles.
Wikipedia policy is to encourage the posting by experts. I am clearly
qualified as an expert on chess. There have been hundreds of published
articles by me about chess. Every major chess magazine in the world
has published articles by me. On the other hand, User:Howcheng admits
that he knows nothing about chess, except that he played one game
while in high school. He should be directed not to interfere in a
subject he knows nothing about. Sam Sloan 11:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion"
Category: Wikipedia dispute resolution
Jerzy
> qualified as an expert on chess. There have been hundreds of published
> articles by me about chess. Every major chess magazine in the world
> has published articles by me. On the other hand, User:Howcheng admits
> that he knows nothing about chess, except that he played one game
> while in high school. He should be directed not to interfere in a
> subject he knows nothing about. Sam Sloan 11:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
>
> Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion"
>
> Category: Wikipedia dispute resolution
Sam you have my support. You write fantastic articles on chess not only here
on usenet.
Regards
Andrew Zito
You're the asshole who give Scam Sloan the encouragement to be a prick.
Nice going scumbag.
Sam Sloan
Billbrock and the other votes by persons who clearly dislike me or
Dorsch, then a majority voted to keep the article.
The act by User:Howcheng to delete my Tom Dorsch article was clearly
wrong. Every knowledgable person agrees that Tom Dorsch is a notable
person. The fact that some people dislike me or dislike Tom Dorsch is
not a proper grounds for deletion. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I need an order of protection telling User:Howcheng to stay from my
articles until he learns something about chess. Sam Sloan 03:03, 4
March 2006 (UTC)
* Where would you propose we get an order of protection from?
-Splashtalk 03:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
* Strongly endorse closure, keep deleted and salt the earth. Here
is the AFD debate, see also Sam Sloan's attack page and this thread on
Usenet. It seems that the complainant may possibly have ownership
issues and is very obviously anything but neutral. But since this is
allegedly one of the most significant figures in chess it should be
trivially easy to verify that significance. The assertion is not borne
out by numerous well-argued "delete" statements in the (validly
closed) AfD. Howcheng seems to have no prior involvement with the
article, and is just the janitor here, closing a rather messy AfD but
one with a decent number of contributions from which consensus can be
established. Looking at the article and its history, and the AfD, I
can quite believe that deletion might be followed by intense acrimony,
but that is not Howcheng's doing. The content itself is an unpleasant
mixture of snide innuendo and blatant attack, and very clearly has no
place on Wikipedia in this form. Even pre-Seighenthaler we would have
deleted or at least aggressively pruned this article, essentially to a
stub of verifiable information (which verifiable information
conspicuously fails to establish notability). Absent any willingness
on the part of the subject's supporters to substantiate notability,
and on the part of his detractors to allow WP:NPOV, I would say that
this is best gone, and there is no doubt in my mind that this DRV is
vexatious and should be speedily closed as such. Just zis Guy you
know? 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I need to point out that two of the pages cited by Just zis Guy you
know? were NOT written by me. There are at least two FAKE SAM SLOANS
trolling Usenet, especially on rec.games.chess.politics . Regular
readers of Usenet can quickly tell the difference between the real and
the fake Sam Sloan's, but Wikipedia administrators probably will not
be familiar with this problem and will not realize that they are
reading something by an imposter.
Also, the article cited above at http://www.samsloan.com/tomswife.htm
called "Sam Sloan's attack page" is not an attack at all. Tom Dorsch
wrote that my mother was insane in California. My mother was a
psychiatrist, treating insane people, and she was from Virginia and
had never been to California. The attack by Tom Dorsch on me was
apparently provoked by a posting from one of the Fake Sam Sloans. Back
then, it was not as well known as it is now that there were fake Sam
Sloans trolling around and Dorsch probably did not realize it. Sam
Sloan 12:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Tom_Dorsch
Jerzy
> Jerzy,
>
> You're the asshole who give Scam Sloan the encouragement to be a prick.
> Nice going scumbag.
Yes, you gave an exact definition of yourself, moron.
Say No To g4
"Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message news:44097d0a...@ca.news.verio.net...
> User:Howcheng made an unprovoked personal attack by calling my
> political opponents my "meatpuppets". See
Interesting how Sloan, who made unprovoked attacks against Dorsch and
Winter via Wikeipedia is crying foul when he feels attacked. Well boo hoo!
Me thinks Sloans likes to dish it out, but cannot take it.
(Also, for you readers that have not done so, now is the time to go to Wikipedia
page and register your attack (I mean vote) for deleting Sloan's Winter article.
While Wikipedia may have its short-comings, we all should pitch in and get this
cesspit called Scam Sloan banned from using Wikipedia as a forum for personal
attacks.)
Louis Blair
> Here is what User:Howcheng wrote at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
>_
> "The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets
> call for deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09,
> 29 December 2005 (UTC)"
>_
> His reference to "meatpuppets" clearly referred to Randy
> Bauer. ...
>_
> The other supposed "meatpuppet" was Louis Blair
_
I had no involvement in the decision to delete the Tom
Dorsch biography.
_
Reproduced from Wikipedia:
_
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion
of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments
should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the
article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should
be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. When meatpuppets call for
deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005
(UTC)
[edit]Tom_Dorsch
delete: barely notable person, only for regular readers of chess
related usenetgroups and people interested in US-chess functionaries,
the article itself gives no hint, why Tom Dorsch should be notable
enough for a wikipedia entry; article is mainly vanity, filled with
personal accusations and rumors; the prime author has a long standing
quarrel with Tom Dorsch, well documented on his homepage(s) and obvious
in the arcticle; he is not able or willing to provide a NPOV, although
he has been explicitely asked to do so; I suggest deletion instead of
complete rewrite, as it is questionlable that anyobody is interested in
doing so Rook wave 11:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I've rewritten the article, or rather, I've deleted everything
that's either a personal attack, unencyclopedic and/or
unsourced/unreferenced. While I do not want to disrupt the deletion
process, I don't think it's nescessary to keep the article in it's old
form for a week longer, just because of this AfD. I don't know anything
about this guy (therefore, I will refrain from voting), nor have a been
involved in the discussion on the talk page, I'm just an editor
applying what I believe to be common sense and Wikipedia policy.
--JoanneB 11:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom doesn't appear to be active in chess recently. His FIDE card lists
no games this year and he doesn't have a world ranking. Is there
anything else that could make him worth including? (BTW, what's a chess
politician?) - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding chess politician: I prefer the notion chess functionary,
simply somebody involved in the organization of chess; Tom Dorsch was
for some time treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice
president of the Northern California Chess Association, and if the
article would not be deleted these were his only notable achievements,
and my first edits (regarded by the prime author as vandalism) indeed
reduced the article to just those facts. What he as achieved when being
in those positions, the primary author unfortunately did not consider
worth mentioning.
Regarding his rating: currently only a minority of players has a FIDE
rating or many entries to this card; Tom Dorsch has a United States
Chess Federation rating, but indeed he hasn't played for some time. His
rating is high, but not exceptional. Rook wave 12:40, 19 December 2005
(UTC)
Tom Dorsch was for some time treasurer of the United States Chess
Federation and twice president of the Northern California Chess
Association -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
MacGyverMagic (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep has held several top positions in US chess organizations. -
Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, this might be a reason, but it still leaves the question: who is
going to provide the necessary facts? The original article did not even
give the complete years Tom Dorsch held those positions. There are
nearly no neutral facts in this article. Rook wave 14:20, 19 December
2005 (UTC)
Dorsch was treasurer of the USCF and president of the Northern
California association (Calchess). I don't see that as "several top
positions in US chess organizations". The USCF is the US national
federation but Treasurer is not a top position, and Dorsch served only
one term, in the early 90's. Calchess is a state organization (actually
half a state, there's a separate Southern California regional
organization), not a national one. Dorsch is a somewhat notable figure
in recent USCF history and should get a mention in an expanded USCF
page, but it's bizarre to say that every USCF ex-officer (there are
hundreds of them) rates their own Wikipedia article. The USCF itself is
not that important an organization. The person currently holding the
comparable office (Finance VP Jonathan Mariner) in Major League
Baseball, a much more noteworthy organization than the USCF, doesn't
have a Wikipedia article, let alone someone who held that office many
years ago. Imagine ex-functionaries of a national stamp collecting club
getting all this Wikipedia heat. The only reason it happens for the
USCF is because of the contentious personalities in the chess world
arguing over nonsense. Phr 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Like I've been discussing on the talk page, all of the POV junk
and attacks need removed, User:Sam Sloan disagrees -- that's why
there's a current RfC on the article. Nothing to suggest he's not
notable though. And thank you Joann for cleaning up the article again.
.:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Since there seems no chance to keep this article anything but a blatent
attack, changing vote to Delete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:19, 27
December 2005 (UTC)
The most noteworthy thing about Dorsch was his campaign for USCF
treasurer and what happened after he won the office (all his duties
were taken away by the opposing faction which still controlled the
policy board). Explaining this would require spending pages on stupid
USCF internal politics which almost nobody cares about. The reason
Sloan made this page at all is he's in the faction opposite the one
Dorsch was in. Having an article about Dorsch makes no sense at all
without a neutral treatment of those issues, but I don't think anyone
is likely to write such a treatment. Certainly not Sloan. (OK, quick
POV version: Dorsch ran on a financial reform platform against vested
interests that have controlled the USCF on and off for decades, made
accusations of mismanagement that turned out to be true, but was a
dorky enough personality that not enough people listened to him at the
time, partly because it was in their financial or factional interest to
not listen. That includes Sloan.) Trying to turn that into an article
would be one of those endless debates that would burn as much of
people's wiki-editing energy as the serious national politics articles
do, but on a subject of relevance to almost nobody. So creating this
article in the first place basically amounts to trolling. I hope
non-chess people who voted "keep" based on not understanding the
situation will consider changing their votes. Phr 11:23, 25 December
2005 (UTC)
Regarding the changes by Joann: ok, now the article is much shorter,
but it's still junk. Come on "He plays chess and has now become a poker
player" - what is this? As I said: my complaints about this article are
not primarly based on the notability of Tom Dorsch. It's the complete
emptyness of this article. And who is going to write something? Even
what Joann has left is not verified. If you remove this as well, only
the title tag remains. So the content of this article is: "There is a
man called Tom Dorsch." Bravo. Rook wave 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dorsch is a former treasurer of the USCF, which is sort of like
being a former treasurer of the National Bowling League or a former
councilmember of some small city. He did have a role in the USCF's
transition to the one-member-one-vote system (he opposed it) and he
could reasonably get a mention in the USCF's article if it's expanded
to cover that history (edit: his treasurer campaign too, a related
topic). His highest chess rating was in the 2300's, probably around
1000th in the US--pretty good for an amateur, but nowhere near
professional level. The stuff about him getting more Google hits than
GM Vesselin Topolov was an error due to Sloan mispelling Topolov's name
as "Topalov" when Googling. FWIW, Googling "Tam Dorsch" or "Tom Darsch"
gets zero hits. Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be more
notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete Sam Sloan is insisiting on reverting the article to his own
version, and as such, I call for a delete and a complete rewrite after
the delete has been done. Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article is obviously in a crappy state, and I don't think
it is going to be fixed up any time soon. When there's an actual
article here, I might vote keep. But until then, no. Titoxd(?!? - help
us) 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Olorin28. I am not neutral WRT to Sam Sloan, and would note
to admins that I have no desire to inject my animus into the Wikipedia
project, except that this is the character of the Wikipedian in
question. Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack.
It seems to me, an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he
won even more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out
the whorehouses and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a
personal attack.TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete: barely notable person -The preceding unsigned comment was
added by 69.149.49.251 (talk =B7 contribs) .
delete: I am a chess player from the USA and think this article is a
waste of everyone's time. In the world of chess Tom Dorsch is
insignificant and the article does not belong. This is yet another
attempt by Sam Sloan to get noticed by the world at large. Warren
66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete, based only in small part to the sorry state of the article and
based not at all on Sam Sloan, who I have never heard of or dealt with
as far as I am aware. I don't think Dorsch is all that notable, save
for what is mentioned by Phr (who makes some good points). -Parallel or
Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
User Rook wave, who started this discussion, has been going around
removing content from all of my postings. He has made 41 edits to my
pages, all of which have removed content, and he has done nothing else
on Wikipedia. He should be ordered to stop doing this and if he
persists, he should be blocked. Sam Sloan 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep--public figure based on own self-promotions, including on usenet
over a period of years. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
68.167.65.99 (talk =B7 contribs) .
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator
of Sam Sloan.
Please refer to contrib history coinciding with Sloan's pet subjects
"USCF blacklist" and Damiano's Defense for evidence. See block log
.
Note Sloan has also attempted to recruit meatpuppets on Usenet [1],
though that attempt seems to have backfired--it attracted people here
who support deletion. I will say sockpuppets aren't really Sloan's
style since his ego is too large for that. He probably just forgot to
log in when he made those edits. Phr 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why you think that this poster is my "sockpuppet" or
even me. I have just looked at his postings and I do not agree with
what he has posted on any subject. I do not agree with what he has
written here either. However, he makes a valid point. If you look at
rec.games.chess.politics and do a search for postings by
tomdor...@aol.com you will see that he has posted 2,680 times to thst
group. Most of these postings took place from 1996 to 1999 and were
signed "Tom Dorsch USCF Treasurer". So, he was an official who posted
2,680 times to Usenet. Most of his postings accused others of financial
wrongdoing, theft and other crimes and misdemeanors. Please do a search
there and you will see what I mean. This is what made him so well known
in the chess community. Sam Sloan 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - Dorsch is well known in the world of chess, and deserves
recognition. The article itself could use some polishing, but it should
be fixed and maintained. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
Cwcarlson (talk =B7 contribs) .
KEEP - Tom Dorsch is very well known in the chess world (nationally and
internationally) and has been instrumental in the United States Chess
Federation. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
207.215.30.18 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE - I think this is a ridiculously inappropriate article -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by Ardy53 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep This issue shows the complete bankrupt and petty nature of
Wikipedia's modus operandi, members, and raison de etre, though I
support the proper construction of such an article I think Wikipeda is
a collective waste of time intellectually: Where they venerate the
"HOLY BIBLE" for some obscure legalist reason today from the stuff
cults are made of, but then next week they will burn and destroy those
same "holy" documents on some flimsy pretext merely because they have
enough votes in legalistic BOOK BURNING as part of some psychotic
adversial process that is run like some childishness for the sake of
integrity and fairness based merely on form and rules. WIKIPEDIA A
GRAND MIND F--K a pedantic idiots' paradise where which ever side you
are on you will win and tommarow upon the changing winds of shallow
fashion some other will. I suggest all chess articles be forwarded to
pushedpawn.org, deism to the templeofreason.org as without sure
consistent editorial focus beyond the instance of the moment Wikipedia
has the integrity of an adolescent fool. The focus of Wikipedia should
be substance not form, and it should be based on preservation of every
nuance of what may be a scintilla of what may pertain to knowledge
wisdom learning and pertinence not the pettiness that is Wikipedia. THE
ANTI_WIKI FOR I AM NOT FOOL --Andrew Zito 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a psychopath
who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (J=FCrgen R.) -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk =B7 contribs) .
BLANK VOTE - Many professional biographers have noted the problems of
including even insignificant persons in a biographic dictionary ("what
is the use of this long procession of the hopelessly insignificant? Why
repeat the familiar formula about the man who was born on such a day,
was 'educated at the grammar school of his native town,' graduated
in such a year, became fellow of his college, took a living, married,
published a volume of sermons which nobody has read for a century or
two, and has been during all that time in his churchyard? Can he not be
left in peace ..."). Their problem is, on the other hand, almost always
related to the lack of space in printed editions -- if Wikipedia
suffers even remotely from such a problem, the solution is not to
refuse to accept material. My second concern is the relevance of the
subject: this is not something to be voted over, unless the voters can
be assumed to be reasonably knowledgeable about the context
(contemporary chess afairs), as well as fairly unprejudiced towards the
subject well as the author. I strongly suspect many voters on this
topic vote largely because of lack of confidence in the author. If
Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, a more stringent method to decide
the inclusion of a particular name is required. I can't decide from the
context if the voting is to deny the subject, or deny the article on
that subject. In any case, when the subject is judged it should be done
impartially. My third concern is with the article: I believe that a
biography of any kind needs much more than this particular article
shows ... but I also believe that neither biographers nor
Wikipedia-authors are born ready-made. A process frpm draft to finished
article seems to be called for. Wikipedia must have a procedure for
handling these situations: and that must be considered by all parts as
impartial and trustworthy. (A. Thulin)
That essay belongs in a discussion of grand wikipedia policy, not a vfd
about a particular article. Right now the policy is that non-noteworthy
biographies get deleted and there's guidelines for establishing
noteworthiness. Debating whether the policy and guidelines are good
belongs somewhere else. The vfd discussion is simply about whether
Dorsch meets the guidelines. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - While Tom Dorsch was a notable figure in the United States
Chess Federation, the article as written provides practically no
coverage of the issues that made Dorsch important. Instead, the author
relates us with tales of Dorsch's activities and proclivities from long
ago, which have very little relevance or place in an encyclopedia.
Sloan has often written disparaging comments about Dorsch -- and vice
versa. It serves no purpose to accept his characterizations of Dorsch
as anywhere near accurate enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a
United States chess player and former executive board member of the
United States Chess Federation, I think it would be a travesty to allow
this interpretation of Dorsch stand.
DELETE - Mr. Sloan is using Wikipedia for settling scores and posting
his delusions of greatness. Have you folks learned nothing from the
Siegenthaler debacle?
Delete Doesn't seem that notable and original author seems to revert
any attempt at clean up, therefore can see no hope of this becoming a
substantial cited NPOV article --pgk(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005
(UTC)
Are you paying attention? You just made six changes and I did not
revert any of them. I did, however, add three paragraphs to the top
which better explain why Tom Dorsch is a notable person. Every
tournament chess player in the world has heard of Tom Dorsch. Are you
one of them? Sam Sloan 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the diff from the "current" version to the one after I made my
first edit to remove the paragraph saying Sloan didn't believe that
Dorsch was involved in the JFK assassination attempt (since it wasn't
suggested anywhere else that he was, saying he wasn't seemed odd). This
is the diff from my last edit to the current version where indeed you
undo more of my edits, including removal of the cleanup tag. So yes I
was paying attention. --pgk(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I did not intentionally remove the
cleanup tag. I am not sure how that happened, but it does seem that
sometimes changes are made that do not show up in the "history".
I have no objection to any real clean-up. I have not reverted any of
your changes. I do object when Rook_wave, JoanneB and Janeth, none of
whom know anything about chess, try to delete the entire article. Sam
Sloan 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article is almost complete nonsense, utterly inaccurate,
and defamatory.
DELETE - Articles which are about mostly unknown minor officials in
sporting associations, have no place on Wikipedia. Particularly ones
which are badly written, and are there for the wrong reasons. I would
think it hard to believe that there would be anybody else who would be
prepared to rewrite this, or replace it with another article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please
do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate
discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion
review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch"
Categories: Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sam Sloan |
Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets
Louis Blair
Keep ... Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Phr 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Olorin28 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete ...TheRingess 07:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
delete ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
69.149.49.251 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Delete ... -Parallel or Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep ... -The preceding unsigned comment was added by
68.167.65.99 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Cwcarlson (talk =B7 contribs) .
207.215.30.18 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Ardy53 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE ... (J=FCrgen R.) -The preceding unsigned comment
was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE
Delete ... --pgk(talk) 14:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete
DELETE
Louis Blair
Louis Blair
> ... Retrieved from
> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion"
_
The material has been removed from that location.
_
A note placed on Sam Sloan's talk page explained:
_
"... the dispute you're having is with more than one
person, so isn't really appropiate for a third opinion
(designed for between exactly two editors). If you
are unhappy with the deletion of the Tom Dorsch
article, you can refer it to a Wikipedia:Deletion
review. Your description of the disagreement with
the other editor seems to be over several articles,
(none of which are specified, except the deleted
one) which also makes it impossible to give a
third opinion, if you see other entries, there are of
the format 'Article - two ideas, please choose'. If
you have a specific situation where you need a
third opinion, please post it there, rememembering
the format is a 'short (one line), neutral description',
signed only by date. the dispute you have raised
looks more suitable for an RFC than a third opinion."
Louis Blair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#.5B.5BTom_Dorsch.5D.5D
_
Keep deleted, valid AfD per process. The funny thing
is, even if you count all the invalid votes, you still get
something like 17d 4k. I don't think we need to salt
the earth on this one yet. --Deathphoenix Ê• 14:59,
4 March 2006 (UTC)
_
Keep deleted. Sloan's spew about meatpuppets
suggests he didn't read the link [2] explaining what
meatpuppets are. FWIW, Sloan's vendetta against
Dorsch continues in Edward G. Winter where he says
Dorsch wrote articles as "Edward Spring" [3]. "Edward
Spring" was a pseudonymous troll in a chess-related
Usenet group several years ago (the name was an
obvious take-off on Edward Winter). Sloan claimed
in 2002 that "Spring" was Dorsch [4] but that was
nothing but conjecture, and others were skeptical.
The Spring=Dorsch claim in the Winter article has
been removed repeatedly by other editors but Sloan
continues to restore it. Sloan seems to have latched
onto Wikipedia as a new venue to carry on his ancient
personal squabbles (Dorsch, an ex-roommate of Sloan
from the 1960's, hasn't been heard from in years and
Sloan continues to hound him). If Sloan insists on
pursuing those petty dramas, that's his business,
but it's best if he did it on his own site instead of on
Wikipedia. Phr 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
_
I hope that people will forgive me for intruding to
correct one small point. Sam Sloan has repeatedly
and falsely connected me with the decision to delete
the Tom Dorsch article. I had no involvement in that
decision. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch)
- Louis Blair (4 March 2006)
Louis Blair
Sloan's talk page:
_
"Engaging in an edit war is not the correct
way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent
reverts in the Edward G. Winter violate the
three-revert rule. Instead of reverting the
page, post your comment on the
appropriate talk page. Continuing to
engage in the acts prescribed could result
in a block."
_
_
"You are in danger of violating the three-revert
rule. Please cease further reverts or you may
be blocked from further editing."
_
_
"Policy on edit warring applies regardless of
the truth or otherwise of the disputed content
or the expertise of the enforcing admin. The
cycle is: be bold (once), revert (once), talk. If
someone else is not following that rule it does
not mean you should too, there is no hurry,
no deadline to meet. Take it to the Talk page,
achieve consensus, and if the contentious
material is still being pushed you will then
have the backing of others in enforcing the
consensus. Unles, of course, it's you doing
the pushing."
_
_
"Your statements at WP:DRV, and some
of your comments on Talk pages of various
chess articles, are incivil and could justifiably
be interpreted as personal attacks. Wikipedia
is not usenet, the two operate very differently
and long-time Usenet users often have a hard
time adjusting. Usenet thrives on dispute,
Wikipedia is about building an encyclopaedia
by consensus, which means engaging
constructively with your opponents to state
the basis of dispute and not advocate either
point of view. On Usenet you can 'win' by
shouting your opinion loudest, on Wikipedia
all points of view must be fairly and neutrally
represented without undue weight given to
any one view. And neither is Usenet a court
of law - you cannot make a statement based
on your credentials and have it accepted as
reliable testimony. Everything should be
verifiable from reliable secondary sources
because Wikipedia is not a publisher of first
instance. You are behaving in an adversarial
manner (understandably given your past),
but that is not how Wikipedia works, we have
a collaborative, not an adversarial method.
_
You seriously need to calm down and take a
less aggressive approach to subjects on
which you clearly have strong feelings. If you
continue as you are you will end up in trouble,
and will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia,
which will ensure that your point of view gets
less coverage, not more. State your case
neutrally and with proper citations, and above
all stop personalising things. Nobody disputes
that you know a lot, but neither do you dispute
that you have very strong views, and those
views are not necessarily neutral. We have to
be especially careful in the case of living people."
_
_
"You are personalising things on Wikipedia (I
don't dispute that they are personal outside WP).
Why should Howcheng care one way or the other?
Howcheng is here only to make sure that people
play by the rules, and although there is much
beef about 'rouge admins' (sic) I have yet to see
any evidence that the average sysop is doing
anything other than refereeing in these situations.
Put simply, I trust Howcheng. Your biggest
problem to my mind is that you often seem to
state things in combative language, which makes
it hard to see past the bluster and find the core
of fact. If you state things in a calm and neutral
manner, and above all do not edit-war, you will
achieve results with less friction. It is an
unfortunate side-effect of the way Wikipedia
works that simply knowing somethign to be true
is not enough, you have to show that reliable
secondary sources have reported it as such.
We are not supposed to weight he relative truth
of different versions, we are not supposed to
have analytical and research skills, we are
supposed to collect and document that which
is verifiable from reliable secondary sources in
a neutral way. A dispute exists? Dosument
both sides. Describe the evidence they have.
And if someone removes that evidence, discuss
it with them on the Talk page and see what their
issues are. Discussion by edit summary simply
does not work. It's fine to have storng opinions,
and its cool to state them on the Talk page (in
terms which do not offend). But when they go
into an article, care is needed, and balance
must be struck. I think you know this. You are
known as being disputatious and as having
deep-rooted views about certain people (who
may or may not be obnoxious charlatans). I
really think you need to amke it easier for
disinterested parties to discount that."
_
A comment that was sent to Howcheng's talk page:
_
"Sam_Sloan (talk · contribs · page moves · block
user · block log) has taken Tom Dorsch to WP:DRV.
I guess you've looked at Sam Sloan's web page?
this is an example. This goes some way to explain
why the article was so very bad - Sloan evidently
bears considerable personal animosity toward sthe
subject. This Google search is also instructive.
Expect some crap from Sam Sloan, feel free to
ask me (email or Talk) if you need additional
backup, but I have a feeling you can handle a POV
pusher well enough :-)"
Say No To g4
news:1141525590.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Some comments that people sent to Sam
> Sloan's talk page:
> _
> rule. Please cease further reverts or you may
> be blocked from further editing."
Repeat, Scam. Repeat! Please repeat.
> "Your statements at WP:DRV, and some
> of your comments on Talk pages of various
> chess articles, are incivil and could justifiably
> be interpreted as personal attacks.
Right on!
> point of view. On Usenet you can 'win' by
> shouting your opinion loudest, on Wikipedia
> all points of view must be fairly and neutrally
> represented without undue weight given to
> any one view.
> .... You are behaving in an adversarial
> manner (understandably given your past),
Hehehe.
> You seriously need to calm down and take a
> less aggressive approach to subjects on
> which you clearly have strong feelings.
You can say that again!
If you
> continue as you are you will end up in trouble,
> and will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia,
> which will ensure that your point of view gets
> less coverage, not more.
Please, let that happen.
.
> Put simply, I trust Howcheng.
I trust Howcheng too.
Your biggest
> problem to my mind is that you often seem to
> state things in combative language, ...
No shit?
Sam Sloan
source was anonymous, as was stated. "The fact that Bobby Fischer said
that Winter is not a real person was big news in the chess world."
Once more, linking to a web page that contains no mention of Winter in
any manner, does not constitute a backing of your claim. Nor is it
relevant, who your close personal friends are or how long you have had
friends. You are free to keep pushing your slant and injecting Keene
into every situation.
"It probably is not necessary for me to point this out, but just in
case anyone has failed to pick up on this: Sam Sloan has given no
source for his claim that 'All of [Keene's books] have been attacked
by Winter.' It is perhaps worth noting that this version of Sam
Sloan's claim does not include a reference to what he earlier tried to
have us believe about Raymond Keene's articles. ('For the past more
than 30 years, every time a new book by Keene has come out or a new
article by Keene has been published, Edward Winter has written
articles attacking it.')" - Louis Blair (5 March 2006)
Tom Dorsch, Tom Dorsch, Tom Dorsch. You really are starting to
sound like a broken record. Have you noticed how the discussion was
going at WP:DRV? Not very well for you, as almost all the other
administrators weighing in on it are maintaining it should stay
deleted. I'm not writing this to gloat, just to point out that you
need to accept when you're wrong. It's true that I became an admin on
Dec 26, but you'll note that I was approved with 74 support votes and
no opposition, so obviously the community trusts that I know what I'm
doing. To repeat for the nth time, the article was deleted in
accordance with the deletion policy. I was unbiased towards you at the
time (having never heard of you) and I remain to this day so. You have
the potential to become an excellent Wikipedia editor on chess topics;
it's just that you can't seem to grasp the fundamental concepts of why
we do what we do here. I suggest you start with Wikipedia:Five
pillars. When you start to grok what this is all about, you'll find
yourself facing much less opposition. howcheng {chat} 07:20, 6 March
2006 (UTC)
No. You are the one who is a broken record. You are 100% wrong
and you refuse to admit it. There is no point to my "becoming an
excellent Wikipedia editor on chess topics" if a wide ranging free
roving rogue Wikipedia administrator such as yourself is going to be
going here and there willy-nilly deleting all my postings. You state
that you have become involved in all my other contributions because
you "were asked to do so". Obviously, everybody who dislikes me is
going to be forever going to User:Howcheng asking you to delete my
stuff. You will notice that I have almost completely stopped posting
to Wikipedia ever since you deleted the Tom Dorsch article. I am a
widely respected, published author. Why should I waste my time with
somebody such as you?
Your fellow administrators cannot do math. You need a
remnedial math course. One of your fellow administrators said that the
vote was 19-4 against me. Completely wrong. User:Rook_wave who
initiated the RFD then voted 6 times to delete. Go and count them.
User:Phr voted five times to delete. Go and count them. User:Billbrock
voted three times to delete. Go and count them. Then, there were six
anonymous votes to delete. Take a look at the bottom six votes at
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch . All were anonymous. So
there were at least 18 invalid votes. Meanwhile, six voters voted to
keep and wrote long, detailed explanations about why Tom Dorsch is
notable. So, the majority of VALID votes were in favor of keeping the
article. Also, one of the votes to delete was Jurgen R., who posts
from Germany and is one of the FAKE SAM SLOANS who impersonates me
from time to time.
Then, you write that I was recruiting "meatpuppets". What is
your source for that statement? You cite a statement by
User:Rook_wave. But meanwhile Rook_wave was over on the chess
newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics recruiting people to vote to
delete. Under the rules, as soon as he made the RFD he is supposed to
stay out of it and not even vote. Instead, he voted six times and any
time anybody voted to keep, he challenged or attacked him, either here
or over on rec.games.chess.politics
How do you know the votes to keep or delete were my
"meatpuppets" or his "sockpuppets"? What you fail to understand is
that all of us chess players know each other. It is very unlikely that
some completely unknown person is going to come in and post.
You should just admit your mistake, which puts the entire
Wikipedia into disrepute, reinstate the article and allow somebody who
is not biased to pass on it. Sam Sloan 13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_G._Winter"
Sam Sloan
to give me some.
Sam Sloan
Louis Blair
"The only thing I deleted of 'yours' (please see WP:OWN)
was Tom Dorsch. I have not edited Chess Life or Edward G.
Winter. Where is the link to any such message by
Rook_wave on r.g.c.p.? Anyway, 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 you." - howcheng
(17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"Keep deleted valid AfD and difficulty in keeping Sam
Sloan from using this as an attack page." - .:.Jareth.:.
babelfish (14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC))
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion
of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments
should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the
article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should
be made to this page.
deletion, you know it's bad. howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005
(UTC)
[edit]Tom_Dorsch
delete: barely notable person, only for regular readers of chess
related usenetgroups and people interested in US-chess functionaries,
the article itself gives no hint, why Tom Dorsch should be notable
enough for a wikipedia entry; article is mainly vanity, filled with
personal accusations and rumors; the prime author has a long standing
quarrel with Tom Dorsch, well documented on his homepage(s) and obvious
in the arcticle; he is not able or willing to provide a NPOV, although
he has been explicitely asked to do so; I suggest deletion instead of
complete rewrite, as it is questionlable that anyobody is interested in
_
December 2005 (UTC)
us) 03:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
to admins that I have no desire to inject my animus into the Wikipedia
project, except that this is the character of the Wikipedian in
question. Billbrock 07:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete I don't know why this one wasn't speedied as an attack.
It seems to me, an unsourced and unverifiable statement like "....If he
won even more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out
the whorehouses and the strip clubs..." can only be construed as a
delete: barely notable person -The preceding unsigned comment was
added by 69.149.49.251 (talk =B7 contribs) .
waste of everyone's time. In the world of chess Tom Dorsch is
insignificant and the article does not belong. This is yet another
66.32.15.53 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
based not at all on Sam Sloan, who I have never heard of or dealt with
as far as I am aware. I don't think Dorsch is all that notable, save
Together? 12:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
removing content from all of my postings. He has made 41 edits to my
pages, all of which have removed content, and he has done nothing else
on Wikipedia. He should be ordered to stop doing this and if he
persists, he should be blocked. Sam Sloan 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep--public figure based on own self-promotions, including on usenet
68.167.65.99 (talk =B7 contribs) .
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator
of Sam Sloan.
Please refer to contrib history coinciding with Sloan's pet subjects
"USCF blacklist" and Damiano's Defense for evidence. See block log
.
Note Sloan has also attempted to recruit meatpuppets on Usenet [1],
though that attempt seems to have backfired--it attracted people here
who support deletion. I will say sockpuppets aren't really Sloan's
style since his ego is too large for that. He probably just forgot to
log in when he made those edits. Phr 13:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why you think that this poster is my "sockpuppet" or
even me. I have just looked at his postings and I do not agree with
what he has posted on any subject. I do not agree with what he has
written here either. However, he makes a valid point. If you look at
rec.games.chess.politics and do a search for postings by
tomdor...@aol.com you will see that he has posted 2,680 times to thst
group. Most of these postings took place from 1996 to 1999 and were
signed "Tom Dorsch USCF Treasurer". So, he was an official who posted
2,680 times to Usenet. Most of his postings accused others of financial
wrongdoing, theft and other crimes and misdemeanors. Please do a search
there and you will see what I mean. This is what made him so well known
in the chess community. Sam Sloan 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - Dorsch is well known in the world of chess, and deserves
recognition. The article itself could use some polishing, but it should
Cwcarlson (talk =B7 contribs) .
KEEP - Tom Dorsch is very well known in the chess world (nationally and
internationally) and has been instrumental in the United States Chess
207.215.30.18 (talk =B7 contribs) .
DELETE - I think this is a ridiculously inappropriate article -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by Ardy53 (talk =B7 contribs) .
Keep This issue shows the complete bankrupt and petty nature of
Wikipedia's modus operandi, members, and raison de etre, though I
support the proper construction of such an article I think Wikipeda is
a collective waste of time intellectually: Where they venerate the
"HOLY BIBLE" for some obscure legalist reason today from the stuff
cults are made of, but then next week they will burn and destroy those
same "holy" documents on some flimsy pretext merely because they have
enough votes in legalistic BOOK BURNING as part of some psychotic
adversial process that is run like some childishness for the sake of
integrity and fairness based merely on form and rules. WIKIPEDIA A
GRAND MIND F--K a pedantic idiots' paradise where which ever side you
are on you will win and tommarow upon the changing winds of shallow
fashion some other will. I suggest all chess articles be forwarded to
pushedpawn.org, deism to the templeofreason.org as without sure
consistent editorial focus beyond the instance of the moment Wikipedia
has the integrity of an adolescent fool. The focus of Wikipedia should
be substance not form, and it should be based on preservation of every
nuance of what may be a scintilla of what may pertain to knowledge
wisdom learning and pertinence not the pettiness that is Wikipedia. THE
_
DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a psychopath
unsigned comment was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk =B7 contribs) .
That essay belongs in a discussion of grand wikipedia policy, not a vfd
about a particular article. Right now the policy is that non-noteworthy
biographies get deleted and there's guidelines for establishing
noteworthiness. Debating whether the policy and guidelines are good
belongs somewhere else. The vfd discussion is simply about whether
Dorsch meets the guidelines. Phr 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
DELETE - While Tom Dorsch was a notable figure in the United States
Chess Federation, the article as written provides practically no
coverage of the issues that made Dorsch important. Instead, the author
relates us with tales of Dorsch's activities and proclivities from long
ago, which have very little relevance or place in an encyclopedia.
Sloan has often written disparaging comments about Dorsch -- and vice
versa. It serves no purpose to accept his characterizations of Dorsch
as anywhere near accurate enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a
United States chess player and former executive board member of the
United States Chess Federation, I think it would be a travesty to allow
this interpretation of Dorsch stand.
DELETE - Mr. Sloan is using Wikipedia for settling scores and posting
his delusions of greatness. Have you folks learned nothing from the
Siegenthaler debacle?
Delete Doesn't seem that notable and original author seems to revert
any attempt at clean up, therefore can see no hope of this becoming a
(UTC)
Are you paying attention? You just made six changes and I did not
revert any of them. I did, however, add three paragraphs to the top
which better explain why Tom Dorsch is a notable person. Every
tournament chess player in the world has heard of Tom Dorsch. Are you
one of them? Sam Sloan 15:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the diff from the "current" version to the one after I made my
first edit to remove the paragraph saying Sloan didn't believe that
Dorsch was involved in the JFK assassination attempt (since it wasn't
suggested anywhere else that he was, saying he wasn't seemed odd). This
is the diff from my last edit to the current version where indeed you
undo more of my edits, including removal of the cleanup tag. So yes I
was paying attention. --pgk(talk) 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I see what you mean. However, I did not intentionally remove the
cleanup tag. I am not sure how that happened, but it does seem that
sometimes changes are made that do not show up in the "history".
I have no objection to any real clean-up. I have not reverted any of
your changes. I do object when Rook_wave, JoanneB and Janeth, none of
whom know anything about chess, try to delete the entire article. Sam
Sloan 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article is almost complete nonsense, utterly inaccurate,
and defamatory.
DELETE - Articles which are about mostly unknown minor officials in
sporting associations, have no place on Wikipedia. Particularly ones
which are badly written, and are there for the wrong reasons. I would
think it hard to believe that there would be anybody else who would be
prepared to rewrite this, or replace it with another article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please
do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate
discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion
review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch"
Categories: Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Sam Sloan |
Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets
Louis Blair
(at Wikipedia) and here (Mon, 06 Mar 2006
13:23:56 GMT):
> Then, you [Howcheng] write that I was recruiting
> "meatpuppets". What is your source for that
> statement?
_
On 08:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC), Howcheng had
written
_
"Mr Sloan, please read WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22.
In the case of Tom Dorsch, you clearly posted a
message recruiting people to come and 'vote to
keep'"
_
and provided a link to this note:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newspeer1.asbnva01.us.to.verio.net!129.250.35.102.MISMATCH!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net.POSTED!8b18be56!not-for-mail
From: sl...@ishipress.com (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Tom Dorsch Wikipedia Controversy
Organization: Ishi Press
Reply-To: sl...@ishipress.com
Message-ID: <43a79b7e...@ca.news.verio.net>
References: <43a2bef4...@ca.news.verio.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 14
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:52:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.199.110.255
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net 1135057931 68.199.110.255
(Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:52:11 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:52:11 GMT
_
It would be most helpful if anybody here went to the Wikipedia
site and added a paragraph or two or even a sentence about Tom Dorsch.
_
Also, please go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch
and vote to keep. Right now the same three prople are over and over
again demanding that the article be deleted. One person even said that
Dorsch being treasurer of the USCF was comparable to being the
treasurer of a bowling league.
_
You may not agree with my biography, but I think you will agree that
Dorsch is worthy of a biography.
_
Sam Sloan
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Louis Blair
"Keep deleted for all of the reasons above."
- Zoe| (21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC))
Louis Blair
(at Wikipedia) and here (Mon, 06 Mar 2006
13:23:56 GMT):
> Rook_wave was over on the chess newsgroup
> rec.games.chess.politics recruiting people to
> vote to delete. Under the rules, as soon as he
> made the RFD he is supposed to stay out of it
> and not even vote. Instead, he voted six times
> and any time anybody voted to keep, he
> challenged or attacked him, either here or
> over on rec.games.chess.politics
>_
> How do you know the votes to keep or delete
> were my "meatpuppets" or his "sockpuppets"?
> What you fail to understand is that all of us
> chess players know each other. It is very
> unlikely that some completely unknown
> person is going to come in and post.
_
"Your statement I had voted six times is
simply wrong. I already pointed this out to
you in the rec.games.chess.misc. I made
several comments, but I voted exactly once.
Still you insist on repeating this obvious
misrepresentation of the facts, in the
newsgroups and now here. And that I were
at the newsgroup recruiting people is an
open and blatant lie. Your behaviour is a
shame. And as a side remark: that all
chess players know each other is simply
ridiculous. There are millions of chess
players world wide. You don't know me, I
don't know you and I don't feel the wish to
change this." - Rook wave (22:29,
6 March 2006 (UTC))
Louis Blair
"... that all chess players know each other is
simply ridiculous. There are millions of chess
players world wide. You don't know me, I
don't know you and I don't feel the wish to
change this." - Rook wave (22:29,
6 March 2006 (UTC))
"You are not a chess player. There is no
record of you ever having been a member
of the German Chess Federation or of you
ever playing a tournament game of chess
or ever having had a FIDE rating or a rating
by the German Chess Federation. Just
because you know the legal moves of
chess does not make you a chess player.
For you to call yourself a chess player
would be like me calling myself a baseball
player just because I once played Little
League Baseball." - Sam Sloan (11:22,
8 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"What are you talking about? Here you'll find
my rating card of the German Chess Federation:
http://schachbund.de/dwz/db/spieler.html?zps=22065-103
and this is my FIDE-card:
http://fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=4666313
Are you lying out of habit or are you really
so inapt to get the simplest facts straight?"
- Rook wave (12:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC))
Louis Blair
"The reason I consider this just to be a dispute between
me and User:Howcheng is that every time any of my
critics see something by me that they do not like, they
go to User:Howcheng. The request to delete the Tom
Dorsch article was made by User:Rook wave whose
postings to Wikipedia are ALL delitions of content from
my articles. User:Rook wave has posted 41 times to
Wikipedia and every one of these postings removed
content that I wrote. However, Rook wave is not an
administrator, so he went to Howcheng and got him
to blank the page.
_
It was only User:Howcheng who called Randy Bauer
and Louis Blair my "meatpuppets". This is clearly a
personal attack plus User:Howcheng should have
first done an internet search whereby he would
have found that Randy Bauer had run against me
for election." - Sam Sloan (12:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"They go to Howcheng because Howcheng is an
admin who knows your history, so it saves time in
investigations. The same happens with me and
certain problem editors. This does not indicate a
personalisation of any dispute other than by you."
- Just zis Guy you know? (09:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"It has been pointed out that User:Howcheng had
no prior knowledge of me and deleted the article
and its history after only a few minutes thought
and based on the berlief that my well known
opponents were my 'meatpuppets'. At least three
other administrators had looked at the Tom Dorsch
biography and none had deleted it. I have posted
more than 100 biographies on Wikipedia and this
is the only one that has been deleted. If User:
Howcheng were any sort of man, he would
admit his mistake, reinstate the article and let
somebody else pass on it." - Sam Sloan (11:46,
5 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"If you are unhappy with the deletion decision,
the correct procedure is to take it to a Wikipedia:
Deletion review, as I mentioned above. What is
not an acceptable response is to post personal
attacks against the admin who made that
decision, like your comment above. Regards,"
- MartinRe (12:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
_
"Howcheng did not delete it on the basis of
thought or belief in any quantity or nature,
Howcheng deleted it because the AfD ended
in clear consensus for deletion. Which, given
the content, is hardly a surprise." - Just zis
Guy you know? (13:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
Louis Blair
"Keep deleted'. I have read the article, and I
think that Mr. Dorsch's high positions in the
United States Chess Federation might well
be notable (so do not protect against
recreation). But the article contains a number
of unflattering claims about this person, and
there are no sources to back them up. The
Seigenthaler case has shown that we need
to be very cautious with articles on living
people." - Sjakkalle (Check!) (10:50,
9 March 2006 (UTC))
Louis Blair
_
*Strongly '''endorse closure''', keep deleted and salt the earth.
- Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- *'''Keep deleted''' I don't think we need to salt the earth on this
one yet. --Deathphoenix 14:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- *'''Keep deleted'''. Phr 20:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- *'''Keep Deleted''' I don't think the "earth should be salted"
MartinRe 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- * '''Endorse closure'''. there is not yet evidence to justify
protection as a deletedpage. Rossami 21:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- *'''Keep deleted''' Jareth|babelfish 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- *'''Keep deleted''' Zoe 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- *''Keep deleted'''. do not protect against recreation Sjakkalle
10:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)