 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 September 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Early comments
(vulgarity-filled section removed)
- Restored in "vulgarity-filled section": see below. Billbrock 08:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
"Man, this dude is f****d up" would have been a less obtrusive edit. Sometimes the truth is vulgar. :-) Billbrock 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Check the entry now. I have re-written it from a neutral POV. Nagaflas 18:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Much improved. But still silent on felony conviction. Overemphasizes Lékó (tempest in a teapot) and is silent on allegations of sexual relations w/ minors (which Sloan's allies vigorously dispute). Billbrock 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- You are free to make any modifications. I was just establishing a neutral base so that the article could at least stay online. As you know, Sloan's life is too well documented, so I purposely left some things out so that others could pick up the slack and so that I could write from an impartial viewpoint. Nagaflas 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Much improved. But still silent on felony conviction. Overemphasizes Lékó (tempest in a teapot) and is silent on allegations of sexual relations w/ minors (which Sloan's allies vigorously dispute). Billbrock 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Sean WI that it's not right to "pick and choose comments to delete (especially when written by others))." I inadvertently restored some comments & not others (forgot to save at end of edit). Adding to the confusion, the original passage (characterized as "vulgarity-filled" by another editor, not me), was edited by an anon who did not sign as such. Billbrock 08:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The "vulgarity-filled section"
(vulgarity-fill section removed) This edit was made by an unregistered user who objected not so much to the vulgarities, as to the thoughts behind them. I have restored the deleted passage, editing the expletives. Billbrock 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
man, this dude is f***ed up. [1]. jglc | t | c 21:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC) + Edited expletive Billbrock 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- :It is a not a surprise to me that the info is there. I have been aware of him for more than a year. He is certainly a bright man in many ways, but he obviously does not value what we would call his "privacy". Maybe he feels he can afford to be completely honest about his personal life. His life is unique and interesting and accomplished. That is why I created his page. BTW: If you would like to see Yale and F-ed up together, try this page: Elizabeth Morgan. And you are a philosophy major? Amorrow 22:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC) +
- ::Oh, yeah, I'm not gonna call into question his achievements or whatever. I find something vaguely demeaning in his description of sexual encounters, though. And, yeah. Yale's mad f***ed up. Rumor is that there's a portrait of Eli Yale, in Yale, Inc.'s boardroom, with him holding a slave by the collar. That's f***ed up. And, yup, philo and bio double-major. jglc | t | c 23:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Italicized section restored. Billbrock 08:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is this page up for deletion?
I think it goes against the idea behind Wikipedia not to include Sam Sloan. The man obviously is well-known on the Internet.
Sam is well-known on the internet only because he constantly cross-posts every little detail of his life in various newsgroups.
Yes, he does tend to disregard restraint when talking about the personal details of his life, but this is one of the reasons why he is so interesting.
I vote to keep this wiki up. Even if you don't agree with his lifestyle, Sloan is worthy of at least a short article on Wikipedia.
Nagaflas 03:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia. Had I know about neutrality dispute, I'd have gone for that instead of VfD. Now that that's out there, would be happy to withdraw VfD. What's proper procedure? Billbrock 17:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Is Sloan a chess Master?
Bill Brock, who is known for his personal hostility towards to me, has just posted two lies about me.
I have never been charged with nor convicted of kidnapping. Also, although it is true that right now I am rated as a Class A player, I was a rated expert or master for 40 years and I recently defeated Bill Brock, a rated expert and former master, in a chess match with a $1000 stake. Thus, it is generally accepted as correct to refer to me as a chess master even though my current rating has fallen to Class A.
Sam Sloan
- Factually incorrect about Bill Brock, whose peak was rating is 2170, and therefore makes no claims to be a master. Billbrock 04:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Some months have passed, and Sloan's claim that "it is generally accepted as correct to refer to [him] as a chess master" still stands. Unfortunately, he never was a chess master. Billbrock 01:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
"[I]t is generally accepted as correct to refer to me as a chess master" is a weird locution. Ganerally accepted by whom? If one's master rating is from the United States Chess Federation, as Sloan's purported master rating is, one is a "master" if and only if one's current USCF rating is 2200 or above. Sloan's current rating, by his account, is Class A (between 1800 and 1999) so he's not a "master" as I (and everyone else I know) understands the term. (Since Sloan likes questioning people's credentials, I am currently a USCF master (over 2200) at over-the-board chess and a USCF senior master (over 2400) at correspondence chess.) If Sloan's USCF rating was at some point 2200 or above, but is no longer so, it would be correct to refer to him as a "former master" -- or possibly a "Life Master" if the USCF awarded him that designation for having a rating of 2200 or above for 300 games. Sloan's claim that he previously was a rated master would be easier to verify if he provided the date(s) when he was so rated. Krakatoa 19:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The convicted felon claims to have been a master (or, more correctly, claims that "it is generally accepted as correct to refer to [him] as a chess master") based on UNRATED results circa age 21. I have been unable to find a USCF rating for Sloan at or above 2200 in any year since 1965. Heh. Billbrock 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Sloan is a convicted felon
- Bill, please reference your claim that he was convicted of kidnapping. Until then, I am removing it. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- ok: here's one (search for "felony" on this rather large page & you'll find what purports to be Sloan's public record. Granted, on the net, anything can be spoofed: bear with me a minute and I'll get you a second source. Billbrock 05:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- This is more informal proof: Larry Parr is a frequent defender of Sloan. In the given link and elsewhere, he characterizes the felony conviction as the State's unnatural intervention in a family affair. (Note further that in the given link, Parr is responding to Wick Deer, who is admitted to the Indiana bar.Billbrock 05:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Both of those sources are second-hand. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- How about this? Note that this felony conviction is in addition to the attempted abduction conviction (but that's admittedly a technicality; both appear to have arisen from the same affair)Billbrock 05:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Who has the NPOV issues here? I'm happy to correct anything factually incorrect. Sloan is correct that I was in error to describe his felony conviction(s) as (a) kidnapping conviction; in fact, they were for attempted abduction (important mitigating factor, of his own daughter), and failure to appear. Sloan vigorously contested the court's jurisdiction. Innocent people do get convicted in these United States; a felony record is a factual matter, not a matter for debate. Billbrock 05:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Saying that someone is a convicted felon is a serious matter that should be established without question before Wikipedia reports on it. Please do not escalate this debate with ad hominems. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- OK, what would you consider sufficient proof? I can order the criminal records of "M. Ismail Sloan" from the Commonwealth of Virginia at nominal cost. Would you first accept that Sloan is also known by that name? Would the records need to come directly to you? Would email be acceptable? Alternatively, you could ask Sloan.... Billbrock 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sloan's felony conviction is hardly a secret to members of the U.S. Chess Federation: ADM 05-18, which would have prohibited a convicted felon from serving on the USCF Board, was viewed by many as a transparent attempt to keep Sloan from participating in future elections. The motion failed. Billbrock 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm a bit slow tonight: here's Sloan's own account.
- Meanwhile, the father was tried in absentia on December 16, 1991 and sentenced to ten days in jail on the misdemeanor charge of contempt of a 1986 order. The father was also tried and convicted on January 13, 1993 of the attempted abduction of his own daughter and sentenced to five years in prison. The appeal of that sentence was affirmed by a 6-3 vote of an en banc panel of this court. See Sloan v. Commonwealth, No. 93-0934-3. The matter is still pending before the United States Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, Sloan v. Virginia, No. 95-8909. The father was released on parole after serving about two years of his five years and ten day sentence.
(Possible defense: perhaps Sloan does not own the ___domain "samsloan.com".) Billbrock 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe I have provided sufficient proof of Sloan's felony record, and will restore a NPOV version to the article. Billbrock 06:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Samsloan.com is registered to him. I find that link satisfying, but you might want to get a hard copy of the materials in case he sees this and takes it down. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
One final comment that reflects well on Sloan's major accomplishment: it's amazing that a convicted felon won a pro se case before the USSC on an unrelated civil matter. Cojones are required. Billbrock 07:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
To retrieve Sloan's felony conviction records, go to http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/courts.html
Select "Circuit Court Case Information" (not "Circuit Courts")
Select Lynchburg Circuit and press Begin
Select Criminal and press Continue
Go to Case Search enter Name: "SLOAN"
Press Search by Name; results are returned under SLOAN, ISMAIL M.; SLOAN, M. ISMAIL; SLOAN, SAMUAL H.; SLOAN, SAMUEL HOWARD Billbrock 00:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious as to who submitted the information regarding Sam on Wikipedia. As Sam is a shameless self-promoter, I would guess he did it. If this is the case, I strongly recommend deleting everything about him.
Yes Sam is a convicted felon.
Virginia Courts Case Information Lynchburg Circuit - Criminal Division CR91003195-00 ATTEMPTED ABDUCTION Code Section: 18.2-26 Charge Type: Felony 01/13/93, 5 year sentence
of which her served about two years. Even though I have removed the Shamema section, I note that he was abudcting his own biological daughter from Shemema's custodians, after being ordered from the court not to do so. Note that the VfD discussions have emphasized that we restrict the article to important historical data. This whole Shemama/felony thing seems to fall under "not encyclopedic". 69.181.82.221 01:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
But it's relevant to his major accomplishment! Impressive that he won pro se; much more impressive that a convicted felon won pro se. I have therefore restored the reference. I'm not happy with its obtrusiveness myself; feel free to make the reference less so. Further (again bracketing my own feelings about Sloan), bear in mind that innocent people get convicted of felonies more frequently than the judicial system cares to admit. Billbrock 07:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Who got Sam Sloan involved with Wikipedia
This is A.W. Morrow. I got Sam Sloan involved with Wikipedia. Sam has been a quiet and contributing member to Wikipedia in the area of languages of Pakistan and chess biographies of players he has known first hand.
See Special:Contributions/Sam_Sloan
I also created this article. Sloan argued a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one of you, nor I, nor Bill Brock, have done anything so historically important. This page has already been throught a VfD process and survived.
Thanks to a admin log incident that was started by User:Nunh-huh being distrubed about my "pattern of edits" (I could not find any official Wikiepdia policy about "pattern of edits"), rather than the final product in the articles I created, and my display of anger at watching him undo a month's worth of my work, the User:Amorrow account et. al. has been summarily banned from Wikipedia I felt I had been contributing and this whole thing was a misunderstanding: Special:Contributions/Amorrow
(taunting paragraph removed)
172.196.184.32 02:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable edit. One's personal life is, generally speaking, one's personal life. However, Sloan's case is unusual in that he's put it all out there, and his account of his life is inconsistent with his Web presence. Would like to see issues raised by pages such as this and this and this addressed, however briefly. Billbrock 05:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Bill and Andrew are discussion the points via traditional (i.e. Non-Wikipedia) email now.
Possible changes from "career as a broker was ruined." to "reputation and career as a broker was ruined.". Seems redundant.
The cite offensive pages certainly are objectionable, but a small fraction of Sam's entire site. Unless he can be shown to be breaking USA law, they may just have to be overlooked as an example of Sam's first amendment rights. Perhaps an additional well-placed adjective or two in the text would help to warn the reader of their existance. 172.197.201.166 14:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Brokerage Career
From reading the facts of the USSC case, it's clear that Sloan was abused by the SEC, and deserved to win the case. But why was his license not restored? Billbrock 05:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the extended revocation of the brokerage license, and the ensuing and complete destruction of his business and reputation had something to do with his choosing not to incur the additional expense and effort to restore his license to its former luster. If he indeed did have the time and money, I suppose it was sloppy of him not to do so, but it does seem like a Pyrrhic victory in the business arena, paling in comparison to the court win. I will have to ask him about it the next time I talk to him. AWM. 172.197.201.166 14:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Sloan himself will share the story here. Billbrock 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Continued Failure to Achieve NPOV
Much as I dislike Sloan, I have sought NPOV in my own edits. Howwever, the most recent editorial changes are again veering towards a Sloan-centric worldview, one not shared by most of humanity. It may be that humanity is wrong and Sloan is right. Billbrock 01:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, I am suspicious of a lot of your edits here. I don't mean to be confrontational, but it does seem as if you are trying to smear him. Maybe it's not deliberate, but it does seem that way. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct that I really do not like the fellow. I am able to bracket this dislike. A "just-the-facts" article is fine; a celebration of his life is inappropriate. An encyclopedia article has conventions; kindly consider using them. Billbrock 01:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I would like you to consider the possibility that your strong dislike for him might make an otherwise normal article appear excessively adulatory to you. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Point conceded. However, the second VfD was instituted by other readers who agree with me that this article reads more like a vanity than a standard article. I believe that deletion is unnecessary; the way to remedy the problems with this article is to seek NPOV. (If we wanted to read an entry approved by Sloan, we could go to his website. If we wanted to read an entry approved by me, I could post it on mine. A good entry might satisfy the mythical neutral reader.) In comments above, I have hyperlinked to issues not addressed. Billbrock 01:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- What would Charles and Shelby Roberts think of this article? Billbrock 03:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- They would probably ignore it since it no longer mentions Shemema or them. 69.181.82.221 02:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I would like you to consider the possibility that your strong dislike for him might make an otherwise normal article appear excessively adulatory to you. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct that I really do not like the fellow. I am able to bracket this dislike. A "just-the-facts" article is fine; a celebration of his life is inappropriate. An encyclopedia article has conventions; kindly consider using them. Billbrock 01:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- I know this is coming in late, but I just wanted to re-affirm the opinions of others in stating that you, Billbrock, seem to have an agenda against Sam. There are two sides to every story, but you seem to be the most vocal and controversial. The great thing about Wikipedia is that over time and numerous edits a kind of general consensus can be made. Perhaps you should consider sitting this article out. There are others who may take your side that are better able to work with others in forming this consensus. --Sean WI 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I admit that I do have an axe to grind. Note, however, that my POV has not been reflected in the article itself, as I freely admit that I am incapable of acheiving NPOV. If you haven't already had the pleasure, Sean WI, meet Mr. Sam Sloan. I would argue that none of this is reflected in the article. Might as well write that David Duke loves his nieces & nephews. But I shall leave future editing of the article itself to others. Billbrock 08:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
recent vfd discussion complained about trivia
The recent VfD discussion felt that the article was too long. The page did start out fairly short, but it got loaded up with details that then needed a re-edit to make those details NPOV. It is probably time to cut out some details. 69.181.82.221 19:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
One other thing about Sam Sloan that makes him unique: He is probably one of the few persons except for Wikimedia#Board_of_Trustees, who both rates a biographical page in W and also current makes regular W contributions. It would also seem that none of the Board members have non-W accomplishments that would cause them to rank a W page otherwise. It would be nice to know if there are any other people who have a W page about non-W activities and actively contribute to W. 69.181.82.221 22:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- One would hope so. The bar really isn't that high. For instance, being an Assistant Professor at any college anywhere seems to be good enough. I don't consider myself wildly notable, but I could probably write a biography of myself that would survive a deletion vote. Krakatoa 23:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- I guess User:William M. Connolley / William Connolley is one such pair of pages. 69.181.82.221 19:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- In general being an more notable than the "average professor" is what is needed to be encyclopedically notable ("the average college professor test"), although I have a feeling that notability standards have declined slightly over the past months. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Sloan's felony convictions
Billbrock re-added information about Sloan's felony convictions on the asserted rationale that they make Sloan's 9-0 win as a pro se litigant before the Supreme Court all the more notable. This seems dubious: having felony convictions doesn't in and of itself make one stupid. Some people with far more serious felony convictions than Sloan's have become capable "jailhouse lawyers." (Of course, the odds of the Supreme Court letting an incarcerated felon argue a case are probably "slim and none, and slim just left town.") Krakatoa 23:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- Have other convicted felons won as counsel before the USSC? (Conviction predating win, of course; John Mitchell-heh.) Generally, these folks won't be admitted to the bar; perhaps extenuating circumstances allowed them to successfully petition for admittance. There may be others, but I don't know of any. Billbrock 01:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know whether other convicted felons have successfully argued cases before the Court. One would expect that at least one other such person had done so. More relevant, I think, is that Sloan won as a pro se non-lawyer. It's very unusual for such a person to argue, let alone win, a case before the Supreme Court. Krakatoa 18:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- The felony conviction was in 1993 well AFTER the USSC case, which was 1978. All the vfd talk was about the article being too long. We dropped the Shemama stuff, which includes the felony stuff. While painful for Sloan, it was the least historical part of the page. You should not just drop the felony thing in wihtout the context and the context just takes up too large a percentage of the whole page. 69.181.82.221 20:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oops! Agree. Billbrock 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
First sentence
The first sentence is not a complete sentence. It should say what Sam Sloan is. What is this guys notability? Is it chess playing, Internet presence or winning in the Supreme Court? /skagedal[talk] 12:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
A Wikipedia entry on a Taxi Cab Driver?? This is absolutely hilarious. Perhaps we can all scour the streets looking for other ordinary people so we can fill up Wikipedia with inane rubbish. Laughable.
Deleted material
I cut out a lot of information out of this article as uncited and unverifiable. If you want to re-insert it, be my guest, but please cite, cite, cite. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. I'll continue to delete all uncited information in this article.
Note: per WP:RS, Sloan's website is not an acceptable source for information about himself. The ONLY statements that Sloan's site can be used as a source for are statements of the type "Sloan claims...." All facts must appear in third-party reputable sources. --Pierremenard 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)