Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive page, do not edit it in any way!

Archive Janurary 1st 2006-April 30th 2007

Contents

Accurancy & Balancing question for El C

Suggested addition to the SEC statement:

  • When brining a lawsuit against a New York lawyer, the Dominion of Melchizedek was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. [1]. Subsequently, when the SEC settled that case, it wrote that the "Dominion of Melchizedek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments."[2]

Suggested addition to the OCC former employee's statement:

  • In an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999, John Shockey, a former special assistant in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, stated: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." [3] The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [4]
  • Also, shouldn't the WP quote be made accurate so that the article doesn't falsely claim that the WP "opined" that CAR would "probably" recognize, when it only wrote that "you get the feeling" that it would recognize. Seems that this inaccuracy is both an insult to the WP and to CAR. EDM suggested the quote should be corrected or totally removed, but Gene_Poole thinks the inaccurate version makes smoother reading, so he wants it to remain inaccurate. What do you think? Sincerely, Johnski 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay. I'm afraid I find that addition too detached for our purposes here. Of course, from the vantage point of the SEC's interests, they find it prudent not to call those governments "corrupt," not to acknowledge that the CAR is rather crudely under the domination of French imperialism (with direct presence of and intervention by French troops, clearly the decisive military force in the country), that their leadership is shameless enough to so vulgarly be bought off to procliam nonesensical titles, and so on. The document dosen't even mention the CAR. But I am. Anyway, unlike former officials, it dosen't make sense for them to qualify these governments, and conversely, it dosen't make sense for us to include it as "less vocal" of the DoM. In short, we can't simply add such a sanitizing excerpt, noted as an aside, i.e. outside of what otherwise are considered pertinent diplomatic circles, as per recognition. El_C 12:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear El C, No problem on the delay, but I think you have mixed up the three issues. The first issue is to only balance the SEC's statement currently in the article, with their follow up statement that the SEC made at the conclusion of their case. The second is the US OCC being less vocal than their former employee, and as it stands now only their former employee is quoted in the current article, but not the US OCC's official web site regarding DOM. The third is the fact that the Washington Post article didn't "opine" that CAR would "recognize the state of denial if it had a letterhead" as the current article about DOM now falsely proclaims, but the actual article only said that "you get the feeling" that CAR would recognize the state of denial if it had a letter head. Why is it so hard to have Wikipedia quote the Washington Post accurately? And why shouldn't the article be balanced with what the US OCC actually wrote about DOM? And why shouldn't the SEC mention of DOM in their case against that NY lawyer be balanced with their statement at the settlement of that same case? Sincerely, Johnski 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response. Perhaps it would be best to deal with one issue/proposal at a time, specifically citing what is there versus what you wish to supplant/supplument it with. Because at the moment that isn't entirely clear. Regards, El_C 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr. El C, I hope you don't mind me helping with this subject. I would suggest by starting with making the Washington Post article reference accurate.

The current article has it this way,

  • An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but opined that that nation would probably "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

The portion in question of the acutal article states:

"You get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

So I suggest our article should state accurately:

  • An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but commented "you get the feeling" that that nation "would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

The main point is to change "probably" to what the article actual said, "you get the feeling" so please feel free to use different wording outside the quotes. Best, KAJ 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no further reason to entertain these nonsense proposals designed to imply that "Melchizedek" is something other than a criminal scam. The statement in qestion is 100% accurate as it stands, and there's no reason to re-word it using weasel words. The author of the Washington Post article clearly offers an opinion on the subject of the "recognition" of Melchizedek" by the Central Afrian Republic - which is what the word "opines" means. No amount of obfscatory babbling by Johnski and his sockpuppet/meatpupet army to the contrary can change that. --Gene_poole 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Gene_Poole: Can you please explain how making the Washington Post reference accurate is using weasel words, or how it is designed to imply that DoM is something other than a criminal scam? Best, KAJ 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again the two of you are up to your old scam. Laying the ground work for the appearance of having consensus and then reverting. As I stated below (which has gone unanswered), this is the reason the case was taken to arbitration. It appears that the arbitration case will lay out some finding of fact against both you and Johnski. The arbitration case has not concluded, so if you guys are playing the old bait and switch game maybe it's time to have to the article protected again. Davidpdx 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: This is not an attempt to giving the appearance of consensus, rather to get help from El C to make the Washington Post reference accurate, which you apparently don't want. Gene has the nerve to say that making the Washington Post reference accurate is using weasel words, when his own words sound like weasel words to me, where Gene_Poole wrote on your page, [5] "I feel that the use of the Washington Post quote is fine as it is. The purpose of the statement is to offer the opinion that the Central African Republic would recognise the state of denial if it has a letterhead. Adding "you get the feeling that..." to the quoted section is unneccesarily verbose, and changes nothing." Now he has the nerve to say there is no difference between "probably" and "you get the feeling" and that exchanging the words is 100% accurate. Hopefully El C has the patience to get to the bottom of this and see the need for accuracy and not just take Gene's word for it. Best, KAJ 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe El C has stated his position regarding your complaint about the quote. I'm not sure why you believe he will change his opinion based on the fact you say he will. If your holding your hopes up based on that, I believe you are kidding yourself. Davidpdx 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
My first question is where did El C supposedly bring up this question? To my knowledge, he hasn't been very active in editing this article at all the last few months. He removed the NPOV notice on the page, but that's all I'm aware of. Feel free to look at the article history, in the last three months that's the only edit he's made.
In terms of the talk page, it goes back almost 4 months since he's made a contribution on this article. Again, please feel free to check for yourself. If you have a problem with a specific user, why are you not sending that person a message?
While discussing it is fine, please keep in mind there is still an arbitration hearing going on at the moment. Davidpdx 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Davidpdx, I did bring up these issues with El C (not that I have a problem with El C) on his talk page. There are enough votes to finalize the arbcom, so why shouldn't these issues be dealt with now, and how do you see the arbcom affecting these unresolved issues? Sincerely, Johnski 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
First, there actually aren't enough votes to close the arbitration hearing or it would have been done already. If you look at the page, it says six arbitrators is needed for a majority. Last I looked they only had four.
Second, the arbitration does effect what's happening to this article, because of the edit waring going on. Furthermore, if you look at the possible outcomes of the case (I say possible because it is not yet finalized) they include:
Finding of Facts
  • POV war-The edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing by Johnski and a host of apparent associates.
  • Association-Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Wikipedia.
Proposed Remedies
  • Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. (note: these have been taken directly from the Arbitration Preposed Decision page).
Please explain to me why the arbitration outcome wouldn't have an impact on the "unresolved issues" that you continue to push? Davidpdx 04:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
My point in bring these (unattributed comments) into play is the fact that Johnski has used the talk page to justify his reverts and claim consensus. This has happened over and over again and is part of the reason behind the arbitration case.
Second, my comments are signed. The above comments about the arbitration case were slightly off center as I didn't get them offset to match my comments. Those are now fixed. Davidpdx 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification/indentation. In light of my explanation above, I remain content with the tag removal. Regards, El_C 15:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the issue with this, the passage is clearly quoted. Please clarify. Thanks. Regards, El_C 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Until this dispute is resolved

I am placing {{disputed}} on the article page. KAJ 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's clarify, what does the dispute being result entail? I'm just curious. Davidpdx 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it; please do not reinsert it without clear grounds. Thanks. Regards, El_C 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr. El C: Honestly, you can't see the difference between "probably" and "you get the feeling"? Gene changed what the Washington Post wrote from "you get the feeling" to "probably". It is not a question of quotation marks. It is a question of his changing the meaning of what the Washington Post wrote, trying to make the reference imply what he wants it to say instead of what it actualy states. Gene is claiming that the Washington Post said that the CAR would probably recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead when in fact the Washington Post only said that "you get the feeling" that it would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead. Would it be so hard to throw Johnski and myself a bone and accurately reference the Washington Post article?
We can include the full "You get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead" passage, I have no objections (even if I'm not entirely clear how that really matters as per accuracy, though). El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of the other reason that I placed the accuracy notice is the following:
  • Membership: I can't find anywhere that they have "membership", unless it means 50 members of the government, but could find that they have "citizens", that for ecclesiastical reasons, they will not number.
  • It relates to affiliation, less than 50 is just a rough criteria. Not sure why that's an issue. Feel free to provide otherwise estimations. (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, but it gives me a false impression, and probably others too. Membership should either be changed to some other word, or where it says 50 it should say 50 officials. I read somewhere they have estimated 10,000 citizens, but can't find it just running a quick search.KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Date of foundation of 1986 is disputed.
  • Who disputes it? (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See below.KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Purported currency: they purport to have "Dominion Dollars". According to CBS and Forbes, their currency was quoted on the Bloomberg.
  • CBS and Forbes claimed "their was quoted on the Bloomberg" when? (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You can see that CBS claimed in 2000 that "It has had its currency listed on Bloomberg and the Dominion itself is listed in Tax Havens of the World" here,[6]However, when it occured shouldn't matter because it is only their "purported currency".KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Listed as a microntion, but only claims to be an "ecclesiastical sovereignty" and has been recognized as such. Also, Micronation is defined at Wikipedia as having no recognition from any world government, so either that has to be changed, or DoM should stop being called a micronation. It doesn't matter our opinion about how they got their recognition, the fact is that they indisputably have been recognized as an ecclesiastical sovereignty by one or more world governments.
  • The article reads: "micronations do not generally have diplomatic relations with recognized nation-states of the world or major international bodies." (emphasis added) Please qualify using reliable sources that this only is a consideration in diplomatic conventions. (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Nevertheless, the micronation article doesn't cover "ecclesiastical sovereignties", and seems to be a mis-categorization for DoM.KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC) and the opening line of the Micronation article clearly states, "This article is about entities that are not recognized by any world governments or major international organizations." KAJ 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It has not been linked to banking fraud only the banks it licensed have been accused of being linked to banking fraud, not DoM.
  • It licensing the banks is the link, in this case. This is at least how it's being depicted elsewhere, no? If no, then (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So why not be specific so the reader has a better understanding of the facts?You don't say that Arizona is accused of being linked to the banking frauds of the banks it licensed, do you? Also, I belive the CBS article linked above points out that DOM itself hasn't been linked to the frauds.KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The DoM was NOT created in 1986 by Evan David Pedley and his son, Mark Logan Pedley. According to Context Magazine its foundations go back to the 1950s, and there were apparently other people involved in founding it, such as, Josiah Merriman, and Albert Blaustein.
  • This was written in Context Magazine when? Their source, if possible. (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Context Magazine stated in their April-May 2001 article called, Altered States[7]: "At the serious end of the spectrum is the Dominion of Melchizedek. Its modern history goes back to the 1950s when David Pedley, an entrepreneur, was encouraged by his Bible teacher to resurrect a place whose name has origins in citations from the Old Testament. Pedley passed this task on to his son Tzemach "Ben" David, who has been working ceaselessly on the project since the ’70s."KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • On the question of other founders, this is where I found that Blaustein is considered a founder of DoM: [8]and although it isn't claimed so by DoM, this shows that Merriman was to a certain degree involved in founding DoM: [9]. KAJ 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can not find any fact to support that "during the 1980s the Pedleys were convicted and imprisoned for multiple various land and share-related frauds." Perhaps someone can cite for me, for example, the share-related fraud either or both of them were convicted of in the 1980s.
  • It says mail fraud for the son, not share fraud, and stock-fraud for the father, but doesn't give a date for the stock fraud, so the reference is not accurate. This isn't such a big deal because who really cares what they've been convicted of, as long as it is fraud, but I like accuracy when reading about any person or subject. That is why there is an article for David Pedley, so all of those accurate details can be spelled out. An article for Ben Pedley should be made for the same reason.KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How can we say that "None of these claims is recognized by any established government" since the treaties they publish on their web site mentioned some of the claims and are purported to be signed by established governments such as Burkina Faso?
  • Claims should be are (plural). Who sees the CDP as an established govt., even in passing? (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What does the Congress for Democracy and Progress have to do with correcting this inaccuracy. We are talking about members of the United Nations, so who cares how we view these governments? This doesn't address the point that the statement should be changed to reflect facts, or purported facts.KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Forbes magazine never used the word "ruse," but did use the word, "dubious" in referring to DOM.
  • How are you able to substantiate this claim? (source) El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I found where Forbes calls DoM dubious, here: [10] "The Securities & Exchange Commission just won a consent court order against Las Vegas-based Countryland Wellness Resorts, which, we noted here (June 12), had reported selling $2.7 billion of dubious mining interests to the equally dubious Dominion of Melchizedek." If you believe an article in Forbes used the word, "ruse" then the burden is on you to prove they used it, not me to prove they didn't use it.KAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now I have cited some good sources, such as Forbes, Context Magazines and CBS. Also, it isn't clear to me if David Korem, which is said to have founded the DoM in 1990 is one of the Pedleys. I'd like to ignore Gene_Poole below, however, I am not a member of any criminal gang, and I'm not sure that DoM is such a gang, because David Pedley is dead, John Gillespie appears to have been kicked out of the DoM long time ago, and their president for several years is a former law enforcement officer with an apparenly clean record. What criminal scams are they running? If they are running any, why haven't they been brougt to justice after at least 15 years of operations. Which brings up the point of the categories, which also need to be more closely examined in light of these facts. BestKAJ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, I am returning the tag until these accuracy disputes are resolved.KAJ 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Now answered. I'm afraid that much of the onus falls on you, though. And in light of the arbitration case, I am removing the tag until you are able to provide well-referenced citations. We had the tag for so long now, I think we're at the stage where we need the objections to be presented in a much more well-referenced form, since the material appears to adhere to mainstream diplomatic and scholarly views. If and/or when we do, I will gladly reinsert it myself. Until then, I'm not inclined to have it remain, seemingly indefinitely, sorry. Thanks. Regards, El_C 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for any spurious dispute tag on this article, because the only people disputing it are self-interesed cranks - members of a well-known international criminal gang - whose attempted modifications to the article are unsubstantiated, unreferenced, unverified poppycock, and who are attempting to openly, repeatedly, shamelessly pervert the content of the article to suit their own promotional agenda via a campaign of organisaed vandalism, that is shorty to result in them being banned from editing Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

I guess it is once again time for page protection. As I have stated above, the actions of those who continually revert this article are being question in the case before the arbitration committee. It is very clear that those individuals have no respect for the process (the very same process they threaten me with), which is evident in the way they question whether arbitration has any effect on the outcome of this article.(see previous section of the current talk page)

If they choose not to respect the fact that there is an arbitration case against them (which is still pending}, then one can easily assume that they will violate any outcome that comes from this hearing. It is high time they start respecting the rules and the process.

I've contacted both an administrator and a member of the arbitration committee asking for a page protection and/or a temporary injunction. As many of you know, at this time the arbitration committee is in flux due to the elections being held as well as resignations. There needs to be a short term solution to deal with the problem, until such time the arbitrartion commitee can finish with the case. Davidpdx 07:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: It seems that you don't understand what went on between Mr Gene_Poole, Mr. El C and myself as we finally worked out the issue regarding the Washington Post reference to CAR, and there was no revert war involved. Best, KAJ 17:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I do see what happened, however by no means do I believe this is the end of it. There is nothing that leads me to believe that you or Johnski won't go back to reverting the article chronically as you have done in the past. While I am glad the minor issue was resolved, I don't believe it's the end of nitpicking of this article by you two. Davidpdx 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

US OCC balancing act

Dear El C, here I've tried to make clearer my request for your help in resolving the US OCC issue:

The article currenly only states:

  • In an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999, John Shockey, a former special assistant in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, stated: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." [11]

However, it seems significant to me that there is an actual reference to DOM on the US OCC's official web site, and to give balance to the article and something more official from the US OCC I'm requesting that you consider starting with or following that former employee's statement with something like following:

  • The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [12]

If it helps, this is the actual text from the US OCC's web site found at:http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/Alert/98-38.txt:

  • "Information has been received that the subject entity holding a bank license issued by the Dominion of Melchizedek, a non-recognized sovereignty, has an unauthorized address in the United States. This entity, subject to Alert 98-14, dated April 21, 1998, subsequently had its Antigua license reinstated. However, the government of Antigua and Barbuda, through its supervisor of banks, has recently given notice that the subject entity's license will again be revoked.:

El C, As you can see, the US OCC is much less vocal than their former employee, and as it stands now, only their former employee is quoted in the current article, but not the US OCC's official web site regarding DOM. Why withhold this official reference? I have no problem with rewording the way it is introduced. Can you see my point for the opportunity to bring more balance and more substance to the article? If you don't like the words, "less vocal", please suggest something else, or ask me to. Sincerely, Johnski 06:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Another insidious Johnski attempt at trying to water down highly negative reportage about Melchizedek and calling it a "consensus" discussion. Yawn. --Gene_poole 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Refuting nonsense claims

I have added a further quote from John Stockey's address to this article, as evidence of the direct link between Melchizedek, Pedley and the conduct of fraudulent banking actvities. Any suggestion that Melchizedek is somehow not linked to the frauds conducted through Melchizedek-licesed banks is arrant rubbish - yet another instance of Johnski trying (and failing) to pull the wool over our collective eyes. --Gene_poole 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope every one likes these changes and additions:
  • The Dominion of Melchizedek website claims that it is a recognized sovereign entity. However, mainstream media outlets, including Forbes magazine and The Washington Post, have characterized it as dubious, and it has been described as a "non-existent country" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. [13]
In the above, used the most recent link that adds the word "country" to "non-existent" which is accurate, since DOM isn't a country. and changed ruse to dubious as that has been proven but removed the quotation marks since both didn't use either word, but they both characterized it as dubious.
  • The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website seems to reinforce Stockey's statements by referring to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" the failed Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [14]
  • Bob Simon in an April 2000 CBS 60 Minutes II expose[15] reported that "the State Department called the Dominion a fraud and compared David Korem (whom reputedly founded the DoM in 1990) to P.T. Barnum". Simon also said that, "while Dominion officials have gotten in trouble with the law for Melchizedek-related frauds, Korem has not." Simon also concluding that DoM is a scam, called "The Dominion of Melchizedek an unusual country" since "no one lives there, and it doesn't appear on any maps", claiming, "it is home to hundreds of banks and other financial institutions."
Comments? Sincerely, Johnski 07:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Davidpdx, I finally added something that I was sure you would like, and El C and Gene seemed to have no problem with it, so please explain what the problem is with this? Sincerely, Johnski 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where either of them said that. It proves you have a creative imagination. Davidpdx 07:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Pending final arbcom ruling

Based on the proposed arbcom decision, I am going to implement this unless some authority tells me not to:

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor I believe to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely. Tom Harrison Talk 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom thanks, right now the lack of arbitrators to finalize the decision is the only thing holding things up. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough to help the problem. Honestly I have my doubts, but we'll see what happens. Davidpdx 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick update on the arbitration case, two new arbitrators voted and there now might be enough votes to close the case finally. We need to keep an eye on this and make sure whatever solution that passes is fully implemented.

I'm pushing for a little bit tougher outcome, but realistically it's probably not going to happen. If you have time, please make some comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Proposed decision. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough. Davidpdx 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted 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.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The outcome now being finalized, needs to be enforced if Johnski gets out of line again. I urge any editor who is aware of aggressive editing or POV pushing by Johnski or his associates make sure to report him to an administrator before it gets out of hand. Davidpdx 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: Congratulations on your victory over Johnshi. It seems that you have silenced him. Are we happy with the article the way it is or do you see room for improvement? There are still unresolved issues that I have raised. Now that this is closed can we deal with them, or should we just ignore same? Mr. El C seems too busy with little interest in the subject. Perhaps you could invite EMD or EDM was it? to try again as he seemed willing if you or others would invite him back to the task. Best, KAJ 07:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, no congradulations are in order. We did what was necessary to protect the article from becoming a piece of propaganda. The reason I say, "we" is because it was more then just myself that had a problem with the edits. As I have pointed out numerous times, nine editors filed the Rfa and gave statements in support of the case.
Second, the Rfa applies to you as well. I want to point out the exact wording of the Rfa:
""If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted 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 burden of proof has already been met in terms of other editors being meatpuppets. This should pretty much answer the question you asked above. Davidpdx 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: You said what you wanted to say, but I don't see how it answered my questions, however, it seems fruitless to carry on this conversation.

I'm glad to see that a new editor has gotten involved, and that he got past you, a good defender of this article. Best, KAJ 07:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you probably better go back and look at the edits that you are claiming are in your favor. You and Johnski automatically assume any new editor will agree with you.
The fact that the Melchizedek Bible article and merging into this one is more then welcomed by me. I also removed the wikilink to Mark Logan Pedley, since that was a redirect back to this article.
Yes, you have made one correct assumption the conversation with me is fruitless. The outcome of the arbitration case is the answer to your question. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. Davidpdx 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record, in reference to the bold quote from the Arbcom ruling above, that I am an administrator and that I believe KAJ to be a sockpuppet of Johnski, and I believe that it is indisputable that KAJ is a meatpuppet of Johnski.

However, I'd be likely to seek input from other administrators in taking any action. However, I don't know a single administrator who has looked into this who has had more patience than me. In fact, some people I asked wondered why I didn't just block 'em all and move on.

I haven't looked at the "new editor" KAJ refers to above, but it'll probably be evident that it's another sockpuppet. Timing is extraordarily, if not comically, suspicious, given Johnski's indefinite block and the arbcom ruling. I refer everyone again to WP:SOCK, which says (and I can now quote it practically from memory) "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that KAJ is a sockpuppet of Johnski, so if you need concurrance from another admin, there it is. I don't think Kingboyk (talk • contribs) is a puppet. Tom Harrison Talk 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, having looked, Kingboyk is clearly not a puppet. It was just a case of KAJohnski looking through Dominion of Melchizedek glasses and seeing support where there was the exact opposite. (Just like when he looks at government quotes.) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a puppet and I'm not even especially interested in micronationism. I'm an impartial editor with no strong POV on the subject. (How I ended up here: I was reading about pirate radio in the UK which took me to Sealand. I then discovered that the Sealand related articles were in a right mess, with the same info scattered and duplicated across multiple articles. I cleaned up a few other articles I found along the way, including this one. I don't believe I've introduced any POV and I believe that every article I've touched has been improved. Indeed, nothing has been reverted so far.) --kingboyk 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sirs: It is funny to see you all think that I was claiming that Kingboyk was pro DoM, whereas, I was only surprised that Davidpdx let him through his defences. Whether or not I am anyones puppet (I'm not) it would be nice to see the issues that I have rasied be addressed by an impartial editor. Best, KAJ 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --kingboyk 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Kingboyk: You would be kind to look at the issues I've raised, but be careful, if you agree with anything I've suggested, you might also be attacked. Thank you and good luck. Best KAJ 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Goodness me, no. I don't want to take sides. My role here was purely janitorial. My thanks are purely for calling me an 'impartial editor', and that's how I wish to remain! --kingboyk 00:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

KAJ, you wouldn't be surprised that rational edits to the article are allowed if you knew what this was all about. You seem to think Davidpdx has a vendetta here or something. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me clarify, neither I nor Jdavidb claimed kingboyk was a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. In fact, it was I that tried to point out to KAJ the fact that Kingboyk's edits were very non-contraversial in nature (as well as the fact that they were not pro-DOM). KAJ made it sound like I'm the big bad bully that wouldn't let anyone edit this article. Certainly, that's not true. Again these huge distortions that KAJ and Johnski make are just that, lies, lies and more lies.
Both KAJ and Johnski have a record of repeatedly used sockpuppets and meatpuppets to edit this and other DOM related articles. This is now a proven fact based on the arbitration committee decision. The decision applies to Johnski, KAJ and whomever else they create to edit the DOM articles. Davidpdx 06:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It appears that you had second thoughts about denying that Davidpdx and Gene_Poole are the same person. Poole has been proven to have at least one puppet, so it stands to reason that he could have many, and just because he creates two different profiles in two different countries doesn't mean that he isn't both persons. 63.201.92.5 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I removed the comments because they were off topic and purely argumentative. The topic of this particular conversation is about Johnski, KAJ and their associates's behavior.
As you are trying to imply I am not Gene_Poole. I do indeed live in another country if you would be smart enough to look at my user page. Again, baseless lies from the Johnski clan. Davidpdx 09:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Good lord, is this exercise in hallucinogenic idiocy still dragging on? Wasn't Johnski banned? Why is he (ie KAJ) still here ? --Centauri 09:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well Johnski was banned, although I'm sure he'll be back. KAJ has to this point done nothing but spread lies on the talk page. If he starts reverting, there are enough people watching that he'll be banned as well. Davidpdx 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
What is also quite striking is the fact that the user who posted above 63.201.92.5 bears an IP close to one that was listed in the arbitration complaint which was User:63.164.145.198. Davidpdx 09:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, well if it isn't my evil sockpuppet twin,Davidpdx. How's our latest anti-Johnski bullying campaign coming along? :-) --Gene_poole 12:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You might want to be careful how you word that. Parnoid schizoids might actually not get the fact that your comment was a joke. It was a joke right? Wait, how can I make a joke with myself?Davidpdx 12:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Because you're schizoid? ;-> Septentrionalis 04:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:KAJ as a sockpuppet of User:Johnski Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

this Dam Dom story got wikipedia some press coverage

http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2006/March/03-06-14.htm Harvardy 07:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this who I think it is? Special:Contributions/Harvardy. Davidpdx 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New opinion issued by SEC re DOM

Here is an actual opinion issued by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. This is more important than a press release they put out years earlier containing unsubstantiated allegations that DOM was non-existent. Notice the SEC is now using the word "exists" in their opinion. The opinion is fresh from 2006. I trust that someone here will either edit the article or somehow make this a part of the article. I’m not going to edit the article as there seems to be a peer system here with an established pecking order.

“UNDR reincorporated in the Dominion of Melchizedek in 1996, and filed bankruptcy petition in Melchizedek in 1998. Melchizedek is essentially a virtual nation that exists at www.Melchizedek.com, although its website makes claims to treaty rights to some uninhabitable atolls in the South Pacific.”

http://sec.gov/litigation/opinions/34-53122a.pdf

Whatsupdoc 04:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no real difference between this and the existing text; a virtual nation that exists at a website is not a legal sovereignity - or Mediawiki would have become one by now. Septentrionalis 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussion isn't about whether or not DOM is a "legal sovereignty" only that it "exists" as something according to the SEC 2006 opinion, as opposed to what the current article misleadingly claims based on an older position of the SEC as totally "non-existent". Why would anyone want to mislead people to think that DOM has absolutely no existence? Probably what the SEC originally meant to say was that it didn't exist as a country which can be seen in the last statement the SEC made about that other earlier case where they then finally called DOM a "non-existent country". Obviously DOM does not exist as a "country". What is interesting is that the SEC acknowleges in this 2006 opinion that an American public company actually "reincorporated" in the DOM and "filed bankruptcy" therein. According to the opinion, DOM "is essentially a virtaul nation". Only saying that it doesn't exist shows no respect for the SEC when the SEC has given an actual - recent opinion as opposed to an earlier assumption or allegation. Whatsupdoc 06:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the same old tried trash Johnski posts all the time. You might want to read my note below. It is absolutely non-negotiable. Davidpdx 11:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. He's at it again. This new document explicitly states that Melchizedek is a virtual country that exists as a website. In other words, it's a fantasy. --Gene_poole 02:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Gene. If you use one of the definitions below:

Virtual at dictionary.com 1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo. 2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text. AND "virtual communities are genuine social groups that assemble around the use of e-mail, webpages, and other networked resources."

We don't know which the author had in mind, but is this the first case of a government identifying a micronation, only instead calling it a virtual nation? Food for micronational thought. Harvardy 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Used most current SEC cases to bring quotes up to date. Whatsupdoc 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
You are sadly mistaken if you think there is consensus on this issue. Myself and others are watching and waiting for your to repost the same old stuff you always do, except this time the diffrence is it will result in a bad. I guess you just will have to learn the hard way. Davidpdx 00:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me! How did I become a Known agent of DOM or a Puppet of Johnski? Can you explain the reason that this issue can't be updated to include the most recent SEC cases? And exactly why it is that it should even be an issue, since these quotes are straight off the SEC's web site? I will not insist but would like to learn the reason. Whatsupdoc 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to play your game and so does everyone else here. You can change your user name as many times as you want, but it doesn't make any diffrence. There is no consensus on the issue you are pushing, therefore you can't change it. Davidpdx 03:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe you have misunderstood what this is about. It isn't about including that the SEC now accepts that DOM exists. I did not add that to the article. The only intention here is to update what the SEC has said about DOM. Why would anyone want to exclude that? To what purpose? This is not a game it is a simple edit which shouldn't involve any response. If this article is about a micronation, the fact that the SEC called it a "virtual nation" seems more pertient than anything else in the entire artice. I read back through some of the history of this article and see that there is concern for giving any crediblity to the DOM, but if that is really your concern, does the SEC calling DOM a virtual nation and a non-existent country give any credibility to DOM? I don't want to get involved in the weird pecking order here, so I'll let you figure it out between the two or three people that seem to control this mess. Hasta la vista! Whatsupdoc 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnski Reincarnated

Well it seems Johnski is back once again as User:Whatsupdoc. [16] This is a firm warning, if you start reverting this page, I will immediately report you to an administrator. You will be banned and the page will be semi-protected again. The arbitration committee has issued its ruling and I will make sure it is enforced. [17] Davidpdx 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comments are just as applicable to User:Harvardy. If you do not stop revering I will report you to an adminstrator and the page will be semi-protected. Davidpdx 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

David Evan Pedley Article

The article about David Evan Pedley has been merged into the main DOM article. If someone has time, the entire article should be edited for clarity and if possible tighten it up to make it shorter. Davidpdx 13:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted 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)

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)

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)

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 [[18]] 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. [19] 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: [[20]],[[21]],[[22]] 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:
[[23]],[[24]],[[25]] Here is the letter of recognition from CAR: [[26]] and this letter [[27]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Meatpuppets

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted 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. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision

It's clear that User:Harvardy and User:Oregonic‎ are User:Johnski meatpuppets and needs to be dealt with under the terms of the arbitration decision. Davidpdx 01:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

linkspam

The link to angelfire.com may be considered linkspam as per [28] Is there a better source that could be referenced as anyone could put up anything they wamt to on the angelfire web site. An angelfire web site should not be cited for government documents or statements. Harvardy 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing Decisions Outside of the DoM Talk Page

It appears that there is editing decisions going on outside of the talk page. I found this page [29] which was started by CyberAnth and was edited several times by User:Johnski meatpuppet User:Harvardy. It seems at best a bad decision for discussions to be made about an article outside of the articles talk page where anyone else can see them.

I am therefore asking that this page be deleted since only one person is contributing to it. Davidpdx 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected it to this page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It is only a Sandbox which could allow others to experiment in before jumping into the real article. It could be that no one else edited it because no one else knew about it. Why not revert back to the version before I played with it and link to it from the talk page? Harvardy 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
We do not need another forum for DoM to promote its interests. Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Tom, thanks for your quick response. Davidpdx 06:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)