http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ing_Tom_Dorsch

=== Case name ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan against
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng regarding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom Dorsch
==== Involved parties ====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billbrock and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pierremenard are indirectly (not
directly) involved.

All parties are aware of the request

All steps have been tried and all further steps would prove fruitless
because the underlying dispute with Bill Brock has been going on for
seven years and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng intervened
on the side of Bill Brock on December 29, 2005 and refuses to back
down.

==== Statement by party 1 ====

I am having a dispute with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng
and I request the Arbitration Committee to resolve it. On December 11,
2005, I posted a biography of Tom Dorsch, who was Treasurer of the
United States Chess Federation and twice President of the California
Chess Association, but was best known for his attacks on the
Administration of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United States Chess
Federation in which he accused them of financial improprieties and
even outright thievery. His attacks included 2,680 Usenet postings and
made him one of the best known chess personalities in the world, even
though he was voted out of office in 1999.

I was asked by another chess player to write a biography of Dorsch for
Wikipedia, because I have known Dorsch since 1962, and I know him
better than almost anybody. I was also his roommate in college. There
are, however, other chess players who know him even longer and better
than I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billbrock whose real name is, oddly
enough, Bill Brock, is known for his more than 500 personal attacks on
me, usually accusing me of being a child molester, a rapist and so on
and so forth. He accuses me of being just about everything other than
a serial killer.

To cite a dozen recent examples of this, look at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics under the
heading: New evidence that Sam Sloan did in fact admit to have illicit
sex with an underaged prostitute. His current email address is


Bill Brock has vandalized or removed content from many of my Wikipedia
biographies. He tried to blank my biography of Tom Dorsch as well, but
was reverted.

After being warned by other administrators to stop doing this, Bill
Brock appealed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng immediately not only
blanked the entire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom Dorsch article,
but, using his powers as administrator, blanked the entire history and
discussion as well, so that nobody can see or recover what happened.
By that time, more than a dozen different editors had edited my Tom
Dorsch biography and as a result it was considerably different from
the way I had originally posted it on Wikipedia.

When I complained to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng about
doing this, he repeatedly threatened to block me if I do not stop
complaining. Prior to this action by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng, I had posted about one
hundred biographies mostly of chess grandmasters and chess
personalities to Wikipedia. Because of the threats by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng to block me, I have almost
completely stopped posting biographies to Wikipedia. There is no point
to my going to all the effort and trouble of writing a biography of
somebody if vandals who follow all my postings can immediately
substantially delete most of it. This applies not only to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Brock, but also to a few other
vandals like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rook_wave,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samscone and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pierremenard. I do not object of
course to other editors rewriting, modifying and updating my
biographies. Indeed, the main reason why I write and post these
biographies to Wikipedia is I want to learn more about the person and
I want to see what others say about him. However,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Brock,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rook_wave,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samscone and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pierremenard do not try to improve
or expand the biographies. They simply delete almost all of it.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samscone has recently been blocked
by another administrator for doing this.)

If you will look under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sa...ith_Bill_Brock
you will see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng
repeatedly threatened to block me. However, I do not have an edit war
with Bill Brock. He has an edit war with me. Bill Brock has been
attacking me for years, long before Wikipedia even existed. On the
other hand, I have never edited anything written by Bill Brock, for
the simple reason that Bill Brock has never written anything, except
for attacks of me.

If you will look under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch
you will see that the vote for deletion was almost evenly divided.
Almost all of the votes for deletion were either by non-chess players
or people who dislike Tom Dorsch. Tom Dorsch is clearly notable. Just
ask any tournament chess player and you will find that he has heard of
Tom Dorsch.

At
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bi...with_Sam_Sloan,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng writes:
\
Your war with Sam Sloan

I highly suggest you refrain from editing the Sam Sloan article,
especially if your contributions are going to be on the level of [1].
The category is for convicted pedophiles, just as Category:Rapists is
for convicted rapists (you have no idea how many times people have
tried to put Kobe Bryant in there). You need to stop bringing your
outside feud into Wikipedia. If this escalates, I'll have to block
both of you for disrupting the community (think of it as a time out),
and I would rather not have to. Calling him a pedophile serves no
purpose. As WP:NPA states, "Comment on content, not on the
contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users."
If you feel his edits violate policy, state how and limit your
comments to policy only. Given what I've seen of his contributions,
most editors will likely agree with you. Regards, howcheng {chat}
17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On the surface, this appears to be a neutral comment. However, in
context one should realize that Bill Brock has only one purpose to
being on Wikipedia, which is to get me blocked. This comment by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng says that if
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billbrock continues to attack me,
then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng will block both of us.
Since the purpose and objective of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billbrock is to get me blocked and
he does not care if he is blocked himself, since he has nothing to
contribute here anyway, this posting just encourages Bill Brock to
attack me more and indeed he has continued to attack me even today.

Regarding the Biography of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom Dorsch I
believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng misused his
authority by blanking that article since
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom Dorsch is a well known and notable
person. I cannot reinstate the article myself, because there were
dozens of edits by other users and I do not know what the final
version was before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng blanked
it as well as the history and the discussion of the article.

Accordingly, I request that the Arbitration Committee decide to
reinstate the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom Dorsch article.

==== Statement by party 2 ====
(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ing_Tom_Dorsch

(Sam Sloan) writes:
After being warned by other administrators to stop doing this, Bill
Brock appealed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng immediately not only
blanked the entire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom Dorsch article,
but, using his powers as administrator, blanked the entire history and
discussion as well, so that nobody can see or recover what happened.
By that time, more than a dozen different editors had edited my Tom
Dorsch biography and as a result it was considerably different from
the way I had originally posted it on Wikipedia.

The Dorsch article was deleted after a standard Articles for Deletion
(AfD) process which chose deletion. When an article gets deleted, the
edit history and discussion gets deleted with it. This happened with
the Dorsch article just like it does with any other article that gets
deleted.

Sam Sloan wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ing_Tom_Dorsch

=== Case name ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan against
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng regarding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom Dorsch
==== Involved parties ====

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Sloan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Howcheng

Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Billbrock and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pierremenard are indirectly (not
directly) involved.

All parties are aware of the request

I was the first one to change this article and I was the one who started
the Request for Deletion. And now I am not regarded as involved! Just
mentioned amongst other vandals. I am deeply disappointed!

Greetings,
Ralf

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)
Reject. 'Preposterous' seems the only word, and I can't imagine the
ArbCom wishing to take this on, except as a way of sanctioning User:Sam
Sloan for posting potential defamation. Charles Matthews 13:05, 8
February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)
Reject. 'Preposterous' seems the only word, and I can't imagine the
ArbCom wishing to take this on, except as a way of sanctioning User:Sam
Sloan for posting potential defamation. Charles Matthews 13:05, 8
February 2006 (UTC)

Sam Sloan wrote (Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:54:35 GMT):

I am having a dispute with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
User:Howcheng and I request the Arbitration Committee
to resolve it.


==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0) ====
- * Reject. 'Preposterous' seems the only word, and I can't imagine the
ArbCom wishing to take this on, except as a way of sanctioning
[[User:Sam Sloan]] for posting potential defamation. [[User:Charles
Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- * Reject. Howcheng, has done nothing wrong, and seems to have been
quite reasonable throughout. It does, however, seem like there might be
a case to be made over the conflict between Billbrock and Sam Sloan. -
[[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- * Reject. [[User:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] sup[[User talk:Sam
Korn|(smoddy)]]/sup 17:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- * Reject. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]]
23:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- * Reject. No case. —[[User:Morven|Matthew Brown]] ([[User
talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 00:10, 10 February
2006 (UTC)
- * Reject. [[Usermcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talkmcdevit|t]] 08:46,
10 February 2006 (UTC)
- * Reject [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 22:32, 10 February 2006
(UTC)
_
(→User:Sam_Sloan against User:Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch - soundly
rejected)

==== Statement by [[User:Howcheng]] ====
- :Relevant discussion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch]]

- I believe this is essentially a request for undeletion and therefore
is outside the purview of ArbCom. [[User:Sam Sloan]] is free to request
a review of the deletion at [[WPRV]]. 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, allow me to address individual points raised by Mr Sloan.
First, I had no knowledge of this dispute prior to this article
deletion. I was simply closed the AfD and deleted the article per
consensus. [[User:Billbrock]] did appeal to me to intervene on
[[Talk:Chess Life]]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=33489234]
and I posted
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...i d=33566471]
in response. My so-called "threats"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=33500593]
to block Mr Sloan were simply statements to the effect that if he
engaged in blockable actions then he would blocked.
-
- My impression of Mr Sloan is that he does not and refuses to
understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have given him numerous
links to [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:CIVIL]], [[WP:AGF]], and [[WPEL]],
but he has repeatedly demonstrated no comprehension of these. He
distorts my words
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...i d=35143321]
and continues to violate these policies
([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=33904383]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...did=38302173]).
He considers removal of unverified content vandalism
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...id=3 2565312].
I believe he is operating with a [[m:MPOV]].
-
- Furthermore, he has not even engaged in any of the steps for
resolving disputes before filing this request. No RFC has been filed
and he specifically rejected mediation
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...i d=35143321].
If ArbCom were to accept this request, I personally feel Mr Sloan would
not like the outcome.
-
- span style="font-family:Verdana;"'''[[User:Howcheng|span
style="color: #33C;"howch/span]][[WP:EA|span
style="color:#0F0"''e''/span]][[User:Howcheng|span
style="color:#33C"ng/span]]''' small{[[User
talk:Howcheng|chat]]}/small/span 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- ==== Statement by [[User:Rook wave]] ====
- I was not regarded as involved, but this is a bit strange, when
talking about the specific Tom Dorsch article. I was the first one to
make major changes in the article (called vandalism by
[[User:Sam_Sloan]]) and I was the one who later initiated the Request
for Deletion. There is an ongoing quarrel between [[User:Billbrock]]
and [[User:Sam_Sloan]], but [[User:Billbrock]] played only a small role
in the deletion of this specific article. He was just one of many who
gave their opinion in this process, so I don't see, why this dispute
and the deletion of the Tom Dorsch article are put together.
[[User:Rook wave|Rook wave]] 12:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On 8 Feb 2006 07:02:57 -0800, "Louis Blair"
wrote:

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)
Reject. 'Preposterous' seems the only word, and I can't imagine the
ArbCom wishing to take this on, except as a way of sanctioning User:Sam
Sloan for posting potential defamation. Charles Matthews 13:05, 8
February 2006 (UTC)


Louis Blair missed the best part, which was when Howcheng referred to
Louis Blair and Randy Bauer as "meatpuppets".

That was at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch
where Howcheng wrote:

"When meatpuppets call for deletion, you know it's bad." howcheng
{chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That was clearly in reference to post by Randy Bauer calling for
deletion of the Biography of Tom Dorsch.

Here is what Randy Bauer posted at 21:46, 23 December 2005:

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.

On the other hand, International Master Carlson was referred to as a
"sock puppet". Here is what Carlson wrote

"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."

Here is what was posted in response:

"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"

Here is one of the three posts by our Bill Brock:

Comment Wouldn't the treasurer of the National Bowling League be
more notable? Billbrock 23:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"

Here is what Jurgen R., a gadfly to this group who has identified
himself as one of the Fake Sam Sloans, wrote:

"DELETE - unknown and irrelevant person; author (Sloan) is a
psychopath who cannot distinguish fact from fiction. (Ju"rgen R.)"
?\The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk .
contribs) .

In summary, Rook_wave, who put the article up for deletion, voted six
times for it to be deleted, Bollbrock voted three times, and almost
all of the other votes against were by persons unknown in the world of
chess or by well known opponents of Dorsch and myself..

This I think is a further nail in the coffin of Wikipedia's
credibility.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote (Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:16:03 GMT):

Louis Blair missed the best part, which was when Howcheng
referred to Louis Blair and Randy Bauer as "meatpuppets".
_
That was at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch
_
where Howcheng wrote:
_
"When meatpuppets call for deletion, you know it's bad."
howcheng {chat} 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

_
Howcheng did not mention me when he made his
"meatpuppets" comment, and there is no reason to
believe that he had me in mind. I have taken no
part in the Tom Dorsch discussion.
_
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 · 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 · 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 · 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
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 · 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 · contribs) .

DELETE - I think this is a ridiculously inappropriate article -The
preceding unsigned comment was added by Ardy53 (talk · 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. (Jürgen R.) -The preceding
unsigned comment was added by 84.152.22.177 (talk · 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

(Sam Sloan) writes:
On the other hand, International Master Carlson was referred to as a
"sock puppet". Here is what Carlson wrote

"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."

Here is what was posted in response:

"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"

Wrong, the post that was suspected of coming from a sockpuppet was this one:

Keep--public figure based on own self-promotions, including on
usenet over a period years of years. --- The preceding unsigned
comment was added by 68.167.65.99 (talk - contribs).

That came from an anonymous user at IP address 68.167.65.99. The
previous edits from that anonymous user were about your pet subjects
"USCF blacklist" and Damiano's Defense, making you an obvious
candidate for their authorship.

Howcheng's comment about meatpuppets was in response to this:

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.

where [1] is a link to your rgcp post:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...0e64ecc1e4f311

which says

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/Wikiped...ion/Tom_Dorsch
and vote to keep.

That is an attempt to recruit "meatpuppets", people uninvolved in the
controversy who show up to cast votes at your request. (The difference
between meatpuppets and sockpuppets are that meatpuppets are at least
actual people, while sockpuppets are multiple posts coming from the
same person but pretending to come from different people). Meatpuppets
are against Wikipedia policy and are treated like sockpuppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets

But as the comment says, your attempt backfired.

In summary, Rook_wave, who put the article up for deletion, voted six
times for it to be deleted, Bollbrock voted three times,

Rook_wave and Billbrock each voted once. They made some additional
comments besides casting their votes, but comments are not votes.