Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
To-do list for Dominion of Melchizedek: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: The additions to this To-Do List are currently the proposals of only one editor and may not reflect consensus of other participating editors. You are requested to first seek consensus on this talk page before making any substantial edits.
  • Verify: Since this article is a controversial topic, all references are required to be at a higher standard. References not sourced to reliable secondary sources need to be, as far as is possible. Those that are not need to be more closely scrutinized. Less reliable secondary sources could do well by being double-referenced to primary sources. Some material may be best left out if reliable secondary sources are not available.
  • Cleanup: 1) While this article is not strictly a biography of living persons, it should probably be treated like one in many respects, especially the sections naming names. See WP:BLP and When adding material to the biography of a living person. 2) This article suffers from some Weasel words (see WP:AWW) and Claims of Consensus here and there. Each should instead specify a reliable secondary source. 3) Scrutinize article to ensure it contains no Original Research (see WP:NOR), specifically that there are no editor "connections" made between non-connecting source claims.
  • NPOV: 1) This article lacks a sufficient section on DoM history and the bases of their claims from their own perspective as found at their website, which should be added to contribute to NPOV. 2) An improved Intro needs to be written, since it only gives one side and does not summarize the whole article well.
  • Other: 1) Could we re-work all references to be footnoted style using Wikicite? 2) Please add to this box as appropriate.


NOTE: this page has been the victim of officially recognized prolonged Sock-Puppetry. Please keep this in mind when reading or commenting on this talk-page.


Previous discussions:

Contents

[edit] Arbitration Case

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.Davidpdx 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Helpful if you actually link the decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision, so people don't just have to take your word for it.--Isotope23 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories according to definitions in Wikipedia

How can this be a criminal organization? Wouldn't some court of law first have to make this determination? The cases I can find involving people of DOM never make any determination about Melchizedek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_organization

People convicted of organized crime as a category also seems a little excessive because a racketeering conviction does not necessarily result from organized crime, unless the indictment states that there was organized crime. I can't see where organized crime was used as the basis for a racketeering cause of action in any of the cases mentioned. "Racketeering" can also be used as a cause of action in a civil case and does not necessarily mean "organized crime".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_organized_crime

If those responsible for adding DOM to these categories can, please give references that substantiate same. (unsigned by user:70.137.153.72 16:31, September 25, 2006) 70.137.153.72 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess who's back Davidpdx 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DoM Whitewashing

It appears our serial DoM whitewasher is back yet again after conducting several "test" edits throughout the month. This is the same pattern that the person has used in the past before starting a revert war. Davidpdx 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to my last revert, that is not whitewashing, but what you are doing is attempted "brainwashing". Good day. 207.47.122.10 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I have asked you not to leave messages on my talk page. Any further messages will be considered harrassment and I will report it.
Second of all, if you look at the definition of brainwashing in Wikipedia, it will describe exactly what you've tried to do the last year and a half. Here is an excerpt for you:
"Brainwashing, also known as thought reform or re-education, is the application of coercive techniques to change the beliefs or behavior of one or more people usually for political or religious purposes."
You can continue to try to post your tripe, but know that people are keeping an eye out for you. Davidpdx 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're the one that added it, but if you are so right, show me any legitimate source that states that anyone in the article has been convicted of being an organized crime figure, or that the DOM has been proven to be an organized criminal enterprise. If you can't provide this, your inclusion of these categories is brainwashing, plain and simple. 207.47.122.10 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go with this stupidity again. Nice try Johnski, but no dice. --Centauri 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] None?

I was thinking of changing it to: "Few, if any, of these claims are recognized by any established government." Any objection? Harvardy 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "none" is correct. Tom Harrison Talk 17:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
My thinking is that since Burkina Faso is a recognized government and the treaty between DOM and BF specifically identifies the section of Antarctica claimed by DOM "None" is not appropriate. See the two links from [[1]] and there are other similar treaties with Cameroon and Nigeria published if you want me to link those too. Harvardy 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Is melchizedek.com a reliable source? Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a source that may (and probably should) be used in this case. See WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. CyberAnth 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That says in part that the material should be:

  • relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
  • not contentious;
  • not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
  • about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

and that

  • The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

It sounds like that source fails three or four out of five. Tom Harrison Talk 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Use common sense. An article about Acme Widgets would certainly include some references to acmewidgets.com to reference what the Acme Widget company says about itself. CyberAnth 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
So you want to say that DoM claims to be recognized by Burkina Faso? Tom Harrison Talk 21:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I would not unless you also have a source from the Burkina Faso gov addressing the matter. As well, I would venture that a secondary source, such as a Burkina Faso daily or the press office of the United Nations, would have a source to cite on the matter if it is so. But in general, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with, and it is to be expected, that an article about a subject will contain a section summarizing the subject's own views from their own sources. See Kingdom of EnenKio which strikes a nice balance in these regards and Saipansucks.com which takes a similar approach. CyberAnth 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think we should follow the sourcing guideline you linked to. But maybe I have misunderstood what you want to do. There is no need to work up a disagreement where there is none. Also, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that is quite a messy situation of meat-puppetry on the RFA page.
I was trying to work up a solution to how to include the Burkina Faso info. The document does appear official, but may not be; hence, it needs to be referenced to a secondary source such as a Burkina Faso daily or the press office of the United Nations, as I mentioned.
Absent that, my input is that any supposed recognition by Burkina Faso does not belong in the article. And if such secondary sources are found, I would then also include the link to here.
Does that help?
CyberAnth 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That basically works for me, subject to details of implementation. We would then be citing a reliable secondary source, and including a primary source. Tom Harrison Talk 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
All of this was added in short period of time, so I'm trying to digest what is happening. Am I correct in saying that unless another legitimate secondary source can be found, the claim that Burkina Faso has recognized the claim of parts of Antartica will not be included in the article. Davidpdx 01:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. See WP:RS#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence. CyberAnth 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we accept that BF has recognized DOM's claims, only that if DOM's claim is true, it negates the "None" as not true, so the "Few, if any" is more appropriate than "None". With all of the scrutiny that DOM has received from the press, you would think the press would have already debunked the BF treaty document which has been published on the Internet for years. Just a few days ago the New York Post started and ended a large article by mentioning DOM. The fact that the press has acknowledeged recognition of DOM by the Central African Republic lends credence to the possibility that other recognition has been achieved. There is also a link in this title to an anti fraud web site (Quatloss) that mentions recognition from more than one African nation. Harvardy 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "few" implies more then one. [2] When you come up with solid proof (meaning a legitimate source) that more then one country recognize DoM's claim to part of Antartica, then let us know. Otherwise, stop trying to claim something that isn't true Johnski. Davidpdx 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason for "if any" means that it might be less than one, but how can you say none, if even only one recognized it? Can we just remove the sentence? I'm not claiming anyone recognized it, but there are exactly three that the DOM claims to have recognized their claims, not including the Central Aftican Republc as: [[3]],[[4]],[[5]] Harvardy
The "few" vs. "none" debate is irrelevant because saying "few" is Weasel Words (see WP:AWW) and "few, if any" is sloppy because if a secondary source or more has reported one recognition then it should be cited as such, and if a secondary source or more has reported more than one recognition then it should be cited as such. Also, it is original research (see WP:OR) to "connect" that if the NY Times has reported that the CAR recognizes DOM, then the BK recognition on the DOM website, a primary source, is accurate. You must have a secondary source to authenticate the claim that BK has recognized DOM. If the NY Times has reported that the CAR has recognized DOM, it is germane...but should be reported as just that and not go beyond that. For controversial topics, one must be a stickler about requiring reliable secondary sources. Also, Quatloss could be considered a partisan source (see WP:Reliable_source#Partisan_and_extremist_websites), so its material should be treated with some caution. CyberAnth 05:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Until more consensus can be reached, I changed the verbiage to state, "DoM's web site claims that it has since been "recognised" by Burkina Faso. No reliable secondary source has published a confirmation or denial of the claim." I think this is fair for now. CyberAnth 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the sentence you added. BTW this is the sentence at issue: "None of these claims is recognized by any established government." The other African governments referred to in the part you changed may be Nigeria and Cameroon as linked here:
[[6]],[[7]],[[8]] Here is the letter of recognition from CAR: [[9]] and this letter [[10]] was confirmed by a media source linked from this title which you might want to mention if it fits anywhere. Harvardy 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that CyberAnth, my concern is that Johnski will continue to push his agenda and the agenda of DOM by inserting weasle words (as you mentioned in your reply to my last message). His first message in this new section is exactly the same tactic he uses every single time.
I'm glad you've taken an interest in the article, unfortuntely your bound to be disgusted after awhile, much like the rest of us dealing with the same overbearing tactics Johnski has used for the last year. I'd encourage you to look at the archieved talk pages to see how Johnski has engaged in this same pattern of behavior over and over again. It would also be helpful for you to read the arbitration pages so you have a sense of the history behind what he does. Davidpdx 05:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I may be naive on this...but am I possibly onto something here to think if we maintain an indomitable consensus that reliable, secondary sources are required for ALL claims, then this mess may get easier? At any rate, I have learned to be a real stickler in these regards. I think especially with controversial articles, Wikipedia content policies are our best friend. CyberAnth 08:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just gave this article a new reading after a long while. I think it has a good deal of problems that need addressing. I'll talk more later when I have time. CyberAnth 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A thirteenth hour message to Johnski

First, have a look at one of my favorite photographs and understand its meaning.

Now how about you stopping this meat-puppetry behavior and entering into mature and forthright behavior and dialog?

True, you will not get your full plate on this article, because this is an an encyclopedia article that must present diverse viewpoints from NPOV and all other Wikipedia policies that really are amazingly wise and good. Wikipedia is not intended to be a place of advocacy for DoM, but is to present a broad range of verifiable, reliable knowledge about a subject.

You cannot, and must not, continue to engage in POV Pushing. That even hurts your own cause, terribly so, don't you think? Most certainly it does.

I hope to see an immediate and radical change. I really do not want to have to add my interminable, forceful, and solidly policy-based voice to the arbitration process, which already will very probably end up meaning that no one but an admin can edit this article. Just follow the policies, follow the policies, follow the policies, or at least have the good grace to bow out.

Maybe I am giving this message too late, however.

CyberAnth 08:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyberanth, I've had this conversation with him and reasoning with him is impossible. As I said before, read the archives and you'll see it's like talking to a brick wall. We suspect that Johnski is Richard James McDonald, the current DoM President. Whomever he is, he won't edit in good faith and will claim he has achieved consensus on things that were never discussed. The best we can hope for is that he will eventually stop for awhile and disappear, if only for a few months before he comes back again. It's a vicious and ugly cycle. We've been dealing with him since the end of July 2005 (almost a year and a half). The only difference now is that the arbitration decision gives us some backing to get his meatpuppets banned.
So here is to banging our heads against a wall together. Glad someone else has joined us. Davidpdx 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well then, I think like the idea of keeping this page in admin-only edit mode. Why not just keep this guy permanently out of the picture, since he seems to have in a protracted way incontrovertibly proven himself to be an editor of bad faith? CyberAnth 11:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the problem is they can't block IP's very easily. I'm no technology guru, so I'm not sure. The only thing we can do is have the article semi-protected and when he avails himself have a admin ban him. The arbitration decision is what needs to be referenced when dealing with the DoM article or related articles in terms of semi-protecting pages or banning his meatpuppets. Davidpdx 12:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear CyberAnth, I've never asked for anything but fair, balanced, accurate and more complete. I overstepped my bounds with lack of knowledge about how Wikipedia works, and overzealeousness to right what appeared to me to be wrong. But I also believe I was badly treated by those on the other side using socks such as it has now been proven that Centauri was a sock of Gene Poole. I've been quiet for a long time. If someone like yourself is willing to take on the task, you'll never hear from me again, and I'd prefer it that way. Johnski70.137.133.236 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I can commit to improving this article, but not until mid Dec. It would probably be better if you truly did bow out out of this, Johnski. CyberAnth 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Admin-only editors should solve the problem. Harvardy 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Johnski and all his sockpuppets/meatpuppets have been blocked indefinitely by the Arbcom. Why are his sockpuppets Harvardy and User:FairHair still active? Should they not simply be blocked? Blind Freddie can see the only reason they're here is to disrupt Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So I make a post, Johnski-puppet #1 replies agreeably, I reply to his agreeable post, and then Johnski-puppet #2 disagrees. Wow. I think they make some medication for that, don't they? :D (Sorry.). CyberAnth 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The people we're dealing with here are members of a criminal organisation that is directly responsible for facilitating multimillion-dollar fraud in dozens of countries over more than a decade. They are obviously masters of deceit. The Arbcom ruling arrived at the conclusion that they were perfectly capable of co-ordinated use of multiple IP adresses in various locations.
As one example, look at this diff where User:FairHair reverts and article to a version preferred by Harvardy. A minute after he does so, an anonymous IP that resolves to a location in Germany reverts it with the edit summary "rm harvardy vandalism". The next day Harvardy reappears and reverts the article again, with the edit summary "revert POV pushing by Poole IP sock". Obviously the whole thing was a co-ordinated effort to make Harvardy look like a good Wiki citizen who's reverting "vandalism" by me. Unfortunately I'm in Australia, not Germany, so the trick failed. --Gene_poole 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree an admin needs to ban Harvardy.
As to the other two accusations neither have been proved for what I've seen. Johnski has even gone as far to call me a sockpuppet of Gene poole, when I am clearly in Korea and GP is in Australia. As for the alligation of mistreatment, Johnski has brought his own woes on himself by engaging in edit wars, making bad faith edits, using meatpuppets and the list goes on. He has never once fessed up to what he as done and I believe he never will. It's interesting that he makes himself out to be the victum. He also made many accusations during the arbitration case, none of which had any merit. After the arbitration case was closed, he continued to make agressive POV edits and was banned. Subsequently a few of his socks were banned as well.
The last two messages above are attempts at grandstanding his way into getting control of the DoM article and other articles related to it. My best advice to him is to heed CyberAnth's advice and bow out now. Davidpdx 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
If you were referring to me I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing with myself. If you were referring to Gene Poole, I doubt he has anything to do with DOM or its supporters, but he does have socks and certainly could have someone in Germany as he claims to have close to 1000 subjects of his Empire of Atlantium all over the world. Davidpdx is most likely one of his subjects. That is part of the reason that I agree that only admins should be able to edit this article as you are one, and the edit war had two sides to it, none of which were admins. Harvardy 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My bad. When I said Averette I meant FairHair. I've corrected my statements above accordingly. I originally suspected Averette and Fairhair were the same person due to edit warring at Conch Republic, but now I've seen Harvardy closely co-ordinate edits with FairHair, it's obvious what's really going on. --Gene_poole 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I corrected that when you left the message on my talk page GP.
Here we go, back to the tired old arguement that I'm Gene Poole sock. Yawn! It's never been proven. The arguement that only admins should edit this article is nil. Where did that rule come from? Oh, wait Johnski makes his own rules! Darn, I forgot that. Davidpdx 03:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something--he-he, probably am. :D
But keeping in mind my email to you, Davidpdx, what would be the drawback of having permanent admin-only editing here? CyberAnth 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that would be a bad precedent. Most of the people who wrote and contribute to the artricle are not admins, and I don't think they should be punished because a criminal gang doesn't like what's written about them. --Gene_poole 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I happened to miss reading the second email you sent to me (I just happened to see it). I feel uneasy about that idea. I also agree it sets a bad precendent for Wikipedia, which allows thugs to run roughshot over this project and cause pages to be locked. I am willing to discuss with others (minus Johnski) changes to improve the article. I have been told in the past that locking an article permenately is not something that is done. There have been cases of the DoM article being locked for a short period of time and then unlocked. I understand why it's being talked about, but at the same time locking an article punishes everyone for one person's behavior.
I've left a message for Tom Harrison and got a response that he is looking into the situation. Please contact him as he's been dealing with this for awhile. If he thinks that's what should be done, then I'll go along with it. Davidpdx 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, folks might want to have a look here: User_talk:CyberAnth#DOM. CyberAnth 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, per User_talk:CyberAnth#DOM, Johnski has given us his word to dissapear until March 2007. CyberAnth 19:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The Arbcom blocked Johnski indefinitely, not just until March 2007. If he returns with his Harvardy sock account - or any other sock account - in March it should be blocked. End of story. --Gene_poole 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I was meaning his apparent sock-puppetry from this page to get around that, which the decision mentions is probably impossible to fully block. Not that all block efforts should not be taken, but you get what I mean. CyberAnth 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It's quiet here tonight. :-) CyberAnth 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up agenda

I added the To-Do List up top as proposals and the {{cleanup}} and {{npov}} tags to the article based upon entries there and the fact that this page's categories list it as such. CyberAnth 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed 30 day page-lock for a cooling-off period

I propose that this page be locked until January 5, 2007. I think all of us could really stand to step back a bit, cool off, and then come back to the page after a month with a fresher and renewed perspective after the New Year.

CyberAnth 10:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a really bad idea. Johnski (Harvardy) disappeared over a week ago, and there's been no problem at all here since then. --Gene_poole 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's shelve the idea while things remain quiet, eh? CyberAnth 00:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I also don't agree with the page lock idea for the reasons you state. Now I will volunteer to not edit this article until the first of the year, which is almost the same thing (minus the page being locked). Since nothing has been done in terms of actually physically locking the page, I don't see what the big deal is as long as everyone agrees to the same thing.
In terms of time tables, I will have some time to help if it is early in Janurary because I will be on vacation the first week and then the second week I have no classes. However, if we wait until the 5th (as your suggesting) that will mean less time I can devote to the clean up. I would like to (at the very least) be able to comment on the changes. Therefore, I'd like to move the time table you set back to January 2nd. Davidpdx 10:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm cool with that. CyberAnth 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/m/Talk%7EDominion_of_Melchizedek_3f49.html"