Revision as of 10:25, 4 November 2005

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (21 July 2005 to 14 October 2005)
• Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 2 November 2005)

Unprotected

I've unlocked this because the discussion seems to have dried up. Please try to reach a compromise between your positions. Any apparent sock puppet accounts are likely to be blocked by the way. Cheers, SlimVirgin 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's absouletly stupid to unprotect this page at this point. Look at what has happened already Johnski has vandalized the page. Why do you think he won't? He's going to take EVERY opprotunity he can to revert this. Nothing has changed since it was protected. Yes, the conversation has "dried up," but that is due in part to most of us taking stepping away from this article that has ended up being so time consuming for awhile.

This article needs to be protected until the time the arbitration committee can accept a case in which they can hear the complaints about what is going on. In essance by unprotecting this page you are enabling Johnski to continue to vandalize this page. Davidpdx 12:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

We can't keep an article protected indefinitely. Have you filed an RfAr, and how long were you envisaging protection would be needed? SlimVirgin 12:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I realize the article can't be protected indefinately. I have not filed an RfAr because last time I looked they weren't accepting any more cases. I will check again.

The problem I have, is those that are moderators seem to do little or nothing to help when there is a legitimate problem with vandalism. I've reported Johnski numerous times for 3RR violation. Has he been banned? Of course not! I have also asked for a IP check, to see who a bunch of diffrent users are, some of which we believe are sockpuppets Johnski uses. Again I wasn't able to get a response back.

I'm not trying to be mean to you SV. I just have to ask myself, why bother? Is it really worth my time if someone can just trash things over and over again (we are talking 60+ times in two months). He has ignored the rules of Misplaced Pages and basically gets away with it. It goes to show the system doesn't work. Davidpdx 14:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The other thing I would like to say about your origonal post above and the comment, "Please try to reach a compromise between your positions." The fact is that I have tried to come to a compromise with Johnski. Everytime I turned around he reverted this page and claimed he had consensus when he clearly did not. He has lied numerous times and misrepresents the rules of Misplaced Pages to suit his own needs. That is why no one is willing to work with him. He says we are the ones who are uncooperative, well I'm sorry to say it's he, himself that is causing the problems. Davidpdx 14:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In related news, User:Jayjg protected Bakok Atoll for us yesterday after I sought his advice. Johnski just takes the fight to other articles. I've issued an ultimatum to Johnski over on that talk page, though I don't know if he's seen it; Johnski is in violation of several policies, and we are not going to let this go on forever. We will take it through dispute resolution if we have to. Protected or not, Johnski will not be allowed to use these articles as his playground. Jayjg also said he'd support blocking Johnski for gaming the three revert rule. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that David someone else is interested in taking a stance. I'm also appreciative of what SV said about banning sockpuppets (I'm saying it now cause I know I might have seemed harsh in my post above). I have filed a request for mediation, which is the first step. We will see if it's accepted. If that doesn't work then we will take to the next step, which is arbitration. Davidpdx 15:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

David, don't apologize for being mean: you're not, and your point is well taken. I know what it's like to be on the wrong end of a troll, and I'll do what I can to help. My problem is I know nothing about the issues or what accounts we're talking about. Could you list the sock puppets or IP addresses this person is believed to have used, and which articles he tends to hang around? Either here or on my talk page would be fine. SlimVirgin 03:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive 2

Mr. Davidpdx: Please fix the second archieved page as it is only a duplication of the first.KAJ 03:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the link to the 2nd archive. The page itself was fine, it was the link on the main page that was in fact messed up. I copy/pasted it and didn't change the number. I also added the heading for this topic to seperate it from the other discussions. Davidpdx 04:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No one has objected to this, and if so, explain:

US OCC balancing act

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that you expressed interest in helping with this article. The Slim Virgin protected the DOM article after a round of rapid fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts broke out. In the past all I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see it isn't easy to get consensus on this article. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is a fraud, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser, KAJ, tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here?

Here is the proposed text:

According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "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." However, the only official website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.

The last sentence in the above paragraph is the only addition to the current paragraph proposed. Can anyone give a valid reason why it wouldn't be best to quote from the US OCC's official website to give balance to the article? Sincerely, Johnski 08:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly people HAVE objected to this proposal, as they have objected to ALL of your edits. That is why the next step is being taken against you in terms of your behavior on Misplaced Pages. Those of us who have been reverting your vandalism (and yes it is vandalism) are taking a stand against you. Either you stop vandalising articles or we will work to have further action taken against you. It's that simple.

As I have stated before, and I will state again, it is more then just myself that is sick and tired of your vandalism, lying and changing the rules on Misplaced Pages to suit your own agends. This WILL stop and it will stop NOW. End of story. Davidpdx 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: Please give a logical reason why this shouldn't be balanced; and show me where anyone else has said so for this specific paragraph. The entire article was reverted before, not simply attemtping to gain consensus for this paragraph. It seems plain and simple, you don't think this subject should have balance?KAJ 06:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not about balance, it's about following the rules of Misplaced Pages, which you have failed to do time and time again. You have lied, reverted against consensus and changed the rules to push your own agenda. Again this will stop. We have started to take action against you and your sockpuppets. Either you stop, or further action WILL be taken against you. Davidpdx 09:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)