Sam Sloan wrote (13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC))
(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.fj serv.net!newspeer1.asbnva01.us.to.verio.net!129.25 0.35.102.MISMATCH!newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.n et.POSTED!8b18be56!not-for-mail
From: (Sam Sloan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt. chess
Subject: Tom Dorsch Wikipedia Controversy
Organization: Ishi Press
Reply-To:
Message-ID:
References:
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:
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/Wikiped...ion/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

_
"Keep deleted for all of the reasons above."
- Zoe| (21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

Sam Sloan wrote (13:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC))
(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))

_
"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))

_
"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))

Tom Dorsch deletion endorsed. 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
_
*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)