Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:19, 27 January 2006

Current Remedies

This comment is about the current remedies being offer. I'm not sure why it is so difficult to block people, especially given the fact that you have IP addresses. It is true that the pages can be protected. However, once they are unprotected, I guarentee you those associated with DOM will begin to aggressively edit them again.

The remedies that are being suggested are not enough. I believe if the Arbitration Committee doesn't send a clear signal about the behavior of Johnski and his associates, that this will be an ongoing problem. A problem which will end up right back before the Arbitration Committee yet again.

I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to consider more punitive measures that will better protect Misplaced Pages from being a propaganda tool. Davidpdx 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Davidpdx's comments above. Johnski is obviously a member of "Melchizedek", which is a criminal gang responsible for defrauding millions of dollars from people around the world over more than a decade. He has clearly co-ordinated the activities of other gang members as well as creating sockpuppets of his own in order to insinuate pro-Melchizedek content and delete anti-Melchizedek content from at least a dozen articles, ranging from Antarctica to Jerusalem to Bokak Atoll, over many months, in a campaign of targeted vandalism that has required massive amounts of effort from many other editors to rectify. Johnski and his associates are not members of the Misplaced Pages community, and their presumed criminal links bring the Misplaced Pages project into disrepute by association. All IPs associated with this gang should, in my opinion be banned from editing all relevant articles for a period of 6 months - and then banned permanently if there is a recurrence of the vandalism. --Centauri 05:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We cannot block EarthLink Fred Bauder 14:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred, I understand now. I guess it is good information to know. In that case, I will be contacting Earthlink personally and giving them an earful as well as referencing this case.

Are all the IP address Earthlink? I was able to do a search on the IP addresses and I believe only a few are Earthlink. I realize sometimes it is difficult to block or ban people that cause problems, so I'm just asking for everything possible to be done that can be. Thanks for listening. Davidpdx 14:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read the modifications on the proposal and I think the Semi-Protection is a step in the right direction. I am still going to do my part though by complaining to Earthlink about vandalism coming from their IP addresses. Hopefully, they can be of some assistance as well. Davidpdx 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't block certain IP's then can't the committee simply declare the vandals in this case personas non grata, allowing any reverts made by them to be automatically reverted without reference to the 3 revert rule? This seems to have worked with a group of dedicated editors and admins thwarting Wik and his army of sockpuppets. --Gene_poole 02:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We can try, but I think this sort of problem is just what semi-protection was designed to handle. Anytime you want to unprotect it and try that will be fine. Fred Bauder 03:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

But can we get arbcom clearance ahead of time that when the page is unsemiprotected changes made against consensus by Johnski et al may be automatically reverted by an admin and result in an automatic block? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Currently most of the findings of fact sound like declarations about the new approach to be taken. I'd like to see some findings of fact that actually declare that what Johnski, et al have done is wrong and is not to be done in the future. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jdavidb, certainly I feel that first glance this was a watered down slap on the hand approach by the Arbitration Committee. Although I realize it's not the final decision yet, it seems like it will leave these articles open to vandalism just as much.

I've looked at the semiprotection page and think it's a great idea. The problem is that it is unclear when it will be implemented. Everyone realizes that these things don't happen overnight nor may they happen for a few months. There is always the chance there will be bugs in the system which need to be worked out. Therefore, I see this as a good solution for a long term approach.

Which brings us back to the short term. Once this hearing is over, it is very doubtful that those involved will cease their behavior. I realize that some IPs can't be blocked, but users can be blocked. Which leads us back to Johnski. I am renewing my call for a 6 month ban from Misplaced Pages on him as well as a one year probationary period. If he breaks it by using another IP or user name, then we at least can go to an admin and point to the arbitration committees decision and they can act. I also would like to ask for a finding of fact that Johnski has engaged in strong pov edit waring, especially given this statement, "So you'd rather see a reversion war than deal with a compromise? Cordially,Johnski 08:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)"

In return, I have promised to contact IP providers and make them aware of the situation and get them to launch an investigation. We can either deal with this now, or have a situation where we end up coming back to arbitration wasting everyone's time. I honestly would hate to see that happen. Davidpdx 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is this: If we ban the users, they will just create new user accounts. I get the sense that the pro-mel people aren't interested in their reputation among the Misplaced Pages community (whether Wiki is a clique or not is a discussion for another day), only in whether Wiki's articles are promoting their biased agenda. I think semi-protection and allowing reverts without having the 3rr broken will keep the articles in line--especially if users keep the pages on their watchlists. Samboy 10:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

But Samboy, how is this magically different from other cases where we ban users and they continue to create accounts. We've already got plenty of banned users who do that, from Wik to Willy on Wheels. It's pretty obvious when the same person comes back.

I would prefer to see Johnski rehabilitated than banned, but without the real threat of being removed from Misplaced Pages if he refuses to make positive contributions, I don't think that will ever happen.

Johnski needs to be directed to edit on topics other than DOM. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Samboy, I agree that semi protection is a good idea. However, as I said we have no idea when that will be implemented. In the mean time, my point is the arbitration decision should be firm not something that says, well he did it, but he's not being held accountable. That's all I ask.

Yes, they may create other accounts, but at the very least it should be pointed out to him that he is in fact wrong and have it on record that he has been admonished and banned. Whether or not he will abide by it is another story, I agree with that. The outcome could also makes it easier to bring him before arbitration again in the future, if necessary. The way I see it, either your going to send a strong clear message "your wrong" or a muttled message that says go ahead and keep reverting. Davidpdx 14:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. An outright 6-month ban on Johnski should be the minimum penalty in this case. He might well try to get around it by registering other accounts, but the important thing is that the committee will have made clear that his actions are wrong, and deserving of punishment. --Gene_poole 02:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• So anyone that tries to edit out bias, mis-quotes, expand controversial articles is a member of the entity that is the subject of the article, and those that join the editing, reverting are too? Why would anyone want to edit articles at Misplaced Pages if he would be subject to such allegations? I request that the arbcom also deal with the issues that I and others have raised. I look forward to a solution that is fair to both sides of this debate.

• Dear Davidpdx, you have quoted me out of context, and in response to my question (which had to do with meditation), you said you would rather see an edit war. I didn't say I wanted to see one, only asked if you did! Sincerely, Johnski 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This not the place to get into one of your circular arguments. The allegations of meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets have already been proven. Thus the views of Wiki-Facts, Immigrationissues, Rriter, etc are not being taken into account in terms of these people whom you are insinuating actually exsist are false.

If you have evidence, then post it on the evidence page. Both you and KAJ have made vague accusations against myself and GP. You started by stating that I was the "ringleader" and then shifting that "job" to GP. In addition, you've referred to me as a vigilante and being spineless for letting someone else revert an article. You wrote an article, Wikilante, on Wikipeda that was used to mock myself and others. If that wasn't enough, KAJ claimed I "don't understand" the rules of Misplaced Pages, but doesn't say how.

On this page we are talking about a proposed decision, not evidence. Feel free to use the evidence talk page to discuss what has been posted. In terms of decision that is fair to both parties, good luck with that. Davidpdx 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• If this is not the place to get into circular arguments why do you do it here, as you refuse to communicate with me on your talk page. The allegations of meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets has not been proven. Thus the views of Wiki-Facts, Immigrationissues, Rriter, should be taken into account in terms of these people who are strangers to me.

• I have presented clear evidence but since there isn't room on the evidnece page, I continued it on my user page, and because you took up a lot of room on my evidence page. You are the "ringleader" as enforcer while Gene_Poole is the ringleader as bully. For good reasons I felt you were a vigilante but never said you were spineless. I had no intention of mocking you. Johnski 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, I will no longer reply to any messages left by you on my talk page. Any reply I give will on an arbitration page that is on the record in terms of what is said. This is not the place to discuss evidence, but instead a proposed decision.Davidpdx 17:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Working Version

After seeing the option given by James about a working version, I happened to search for an article which was under the same requirement. I found Armenian Genocide/Working version which is being used in the same way.

I have many questions about how this works. First, how does the working version get to the protected version? What would prevent the working version that is vandalised getting moved to the protected version. I'm sure these things have been asked before, but I'm curious. Davidpdx 02:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of Arbitration Evidence Page

On Janurary 17th, User:63.164.145.198 blanked the Evidence page in this case. Here is the diff showing the blank as well as someone who restore it. . If you look at the contributions of this person, back on September 27th they reverted the DOM article. . This would mean that Johnski or one of his sock/meatpuppets was responsible for the vandalism of this page. I hope that the arbitration committee is aware of this fact and will take this into consideration in terms of stiffer sanctions against Johnski. Davidpdx 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

KAJ COMMENTS TO ARBITRATION COMMITY

I agree that the locus of this dispute is edit warring and POV editing of Dominion of Melchizedek and related articles. However, I don't agree that the edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing entirely by Johnski and a host of apparent associates. If Johnski has associates editing these articles, I am not one. The fact is that Gene_Poole and his apparent associates have been as aggressive as Johnski and should be dealt with equally. It appears to me that Gene_Poole with the help of Davidpdx instigated the edit war. KAJ 23:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that KAJ shows up today after someone blanked an entire arbitration page. He shows up and screams and yells that the decision (which was on the same page that was blanked yesterday) is unfair. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what's going on. Davidpdx 07:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction

I am renewing my request for a temporary injunction for the Dominion of Melchizedek article. It appears KAJ and Johnski have again begun their revert war, even before the arbitration case has concluded. It is my belief if an injunction is not granted, these individuals will continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages through sustained revert wars. Davidpdx 12:40, 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. KAJ 17:45, 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 19:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Inconsistancies of what is done vs. what is said

Essentially, because of the delay by the arbitration committee, Johnski is yet again at his old tricks. He is consistanly trying to make changes and claiming consensus. If this continues it will turn into a full fledge revert war, yet again.

The arbitration committee has sent the wrong message to these individuals and they are acting as though there are no consequences for their actions. Yet, if he came right out and said that, he would be absoultely right. There are no consequences, because of the fact this case has been delayed as well as delivering a watered down decision that will not help solve the dispute.

This is frustrating, because I (and others) brought this case before arbitration to ask for help. Davidpdx 11:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There are no tricks here as I've gone as far as I can to build consensus with Davidpdx, even adding something new supporting his POV that DOM is a fraud, by citing CBS as saying that the State Dept called DOM a fraud. He can not show anything specifically wrong with what I've done. It is only because I did it that he complains. Sincerely, 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What Johnski fails to mention is that while some of the material he has recently added does state that Melchizedek is a fraud, his actions still constitute subtle vandalism, because amongst the material added he has slyly insinuated material that (1) falsely gives the impression that the US Securities & Exchange Commission recognises Melchizedek as a "sovereignty" (which it most certainly does not), and (2) falsely suggests that Evan Pedley (aka Branch Vinedresser) has no direct link with the many frauds perpetrated by Melchizedek's fictional "banks" by quoting a CBS reporter who was evidently unaware of the fact that Korem had in fact been arrested by the FBI for precisely that reason - as is clearly stated in the quote by John Stockey in the article. --Centauri 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At least for now, he's been banned. Hopefully, the last vote that is needed will be casted by an arbitrator and the decision will be finalized. I'm hoping the semi-protection is enough to solve the problem, but I'm skeptical at best. Davidpdx 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)