Revision as of 17:21, 25 October 2005

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (21 July 2005 to 14 October 2005):

Breach of Good Faith

In terms of a compromise, there has been nothing agreed upon. Yet Johnski and Samspade continue to revert this page (and others) to reflect a minority opinion. In short, this is POV pushing and also a breach of good faith on negociating. The fact is that neither Johnski or Samspade are willing to provide the proof they say exsists to confirm the facts that they are claiming.

The compromise section was a waste of time (as Genepoole stated). I'm no longer willing to find a compromise with those who wish to POV push and not follow the rules of Misplaced Pages. Therefore, because no compromise was made the page should remain as is. Davidpdx 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

David, I used a good faith opportuntity to revert after vandalism. I fear that the entire subject may be too much to work on at one time, so I'll give you point by point challenges, the first being, please cite me a credible source that states a "direct link to large scale banking fraud." Or let the person that wrote it cite it, if you can't find it, and give it here.Johnski 07:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my decision to hault a compromise discussion. The article that was reverted after the vandalism was the "alternative article" that you were proposing in the talk page, which had no consensus. This in itself shows a lack of good faith. Davidpdx 07:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

So you'd rather see a reversion war than deal with a compromise? Cordially,Johnski 08:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it comes to, yes. And for the record, any reverts you make will be considered vandalism since there is no consensus and therefore the previous version must remain until a consensus is reached. You have refused to follow Misplaced Pages rules time and time again and instead write your own rules. That's not how it works. It was you that reverted the article to the "alternate version" with no consensus, showing a lack of good faith. Therefore, it is vandalism pure and simple. I've warned you, I will report vandalism. You can choose to look at it any way you want, but I'm not willing to work on an compromise any longer. Davidpdx 10:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

David, This shows me that you really never had any interest in a compromise, and it is clear that you really never looked closely enough to understand the points I made. Especially since you are not willing to answer my first email to you. I counted at least 7 different IP addresses and User names that showed tendency towards the versions that I worked on. So it isn't vandalism, especially when I've moved closer to other versions in working towards a compromise.

If no one can answer my first challenge, I'll remove that part from the version that you have approved, then move to the next point. Perhaps this is the method that should have been used in the beginning. CordiallyJohnski 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

First, you are absoutely mistaken that I approved anything. I tried to work with you in good faith, but you did in fact revert the page to your version. That is the honest truth. How about admitting that?

Second, I have stated I am not willing to work with you, therefore why would I respond to your email? This was a conversation we had a month ago in which you never responded. You would not respond to my prompts for proof as to certain claims you were making. In addition, your good buddy Samspade was insulting. Why would I work with either of you now?

Third, you are now claiming seven people support the version that you are pushing? I really think you should stop taking acid, it's really making you have delusions. In fact, there are TWO people (you and Samspade) that are pushing for the revisions. There are at lease three people that oppose any changes. Either way there is no consensus. If you would actually bother to read the rules, you would see that this means that the previous version must remain unless a consensus can be reached.

Fourth, it's not just me that is claiming your reverts are vandalism. If you want to take issue with the fact I'm calling it vandalism, you had better be prepared to deal with others as well as myself. I have in fact listed you and Samspade as vandalising this article. If it is reverted, then myself or someone else will be more then happy to ask for you to be banned. Davidpdx 12:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I already admitted that the one I reverted was the alternate version and never denied that, and I never said that you approved that alternate version. My reference to the one you approved, is the one you keep reverting back to. Do you not approve the one you keep reverting back to? Now, look, you are the one with the insults, claiming that I use acid, when in fact, I've never been brave enough to even try it, not once. My spititual faith from childhood till now prohibits such abuse. Perhaps if I did try it I would not be writing about this subject at all. Here are the more than 7 that I found, one of which at times was a duplication of myself when I used an IP address, 67.124.49.20, 63.164.145.198, 71.130.204.74, 66.245.247.37, 208.57.91.27, Rriter, Samspade aka SamuelSpade, 68.123.207.17, 202.162.71.63 with the last being the least supportive but showed in the past that he/she moves in the same direction, i.e. adding another country that may recognize DOM, etc. There are others that edited at related articles that also seemed to bend towards my editions that I did not list here, and mostly having User names, not just IP addresses. SincerelyJohnski 17:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are sadly mistaken. I did not approve the current article. If there is no concensus, then the current article must remain. Despite how many diffrent ip's or usernames you have, there is NO CONSENSUS! Davidpdx 02:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are not reading what I've written, as I never claimed you approved it. I only have one user name and have only used one IP address, but despite how many friends that will revert for you, there is NO CONSENSUS on Gene's version either. I'm only removing the bias by bringing balance to the article. What is your problem with that? CordiallyJohnski 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You are truly clueless, yes you did claim that I approved it. You also have reverted this article several times. The version is not Gene's nor mine it is the version that stands as of now. Yes, by default it has consensus, because nothing else has been agreed upon. Your edits continue only to do one thing, push the idea that DOM is legitimate. 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Unsigned by Davidpdx

Davidpdx, I really don't want to fight with you and you seem sincerely disturbed by me and my efforts to neutralize the bias on this article. However, I really don't like accusations that I sincerely belive to be baseless. If I wrote that you approved it, please point me to that statement so I can correct such an error right there. If you believe that the unbiased account that has become more balanced through mine and other's efforts, makes DOM look legitimate, perhaps you are the one that is on acid? And the last two editions were posted by people other than myself. Sincerely,Johnski 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from the micronation talk page about Gene Poole's possible agenda

It's worth pointing out here that Gene_poole is actually a member of a micronation - Atlantium - and has been using this page to promote their agenda, deleting the micronations less serious than them under the argument that they are "not notable". When protests are made, he gets his buddies in to claim that micronationalists from the simulationist sector have a conflict of interest, whilst failing to point out that he too is a micronationalist. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and that is also applicable where deletions are made in order to keep a sector of micronationalism off the wiki in order to promote a secessionist agenda. --Graius 11:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Talk:Micronation

Readers should note that the above statement is a deliberately misleading speculation, originally posted on an unrelated talk page, which has has no relevance to this discussion. --Gene_poole 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from Misplaced Pages - "be bold in editing pages that are biased"

Quoting from Misplaced Pages's position on bias below gives me the courage to be "bold" and I again ask for help:

The most important lesson More important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal. Be bold in editing pages that are biased, be bold in asking for help, and do not be alarmed when others edit your articles.

Realize you may have a POV you're not aware of, that you might have learned something wrong or that you might be misremembering it. Consider that even when an article has struck everyone who has read it so far as neutral, others arriving with a different POV may still have a good reason to change it. Often even a neutral article can be made still more neutral.

Regard bias as a problem with the article, not with the people who wrote it. Taking the opposite tack just makes people stubborn and makes you look bad. Teach, don't attack. For users you can't reason with and who seem determined to violate NPOV policy, enlist the help of the Misplaced Pages mediators. Just never forget to give discussion an honest try. Once they are given a little courtesy and respect, you might be surprised how many Wikipedians turn out to be not so biased after all.

Reported Vandalism

Vandalism in progress was listed for this page, due to reverts that had no consensus Davidpdx 03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Davidpdx, lost track of time, but on the other hand, does the 3RR include versions that have been changed, or if they are identical over that 24 hour period?Johnski 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Davidpdx, I admit I reverted too much in 24 hours, losing track of time, but just read on the 3RR page, "First, check if you actually did make a fourth revert in 24 hours or very close to it." Fortunately, I don't think I went this far, but appologize for so many reverts. Perhaps this will end up with my request for dispute resolution.Johnski 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

article that may be biased

Should this be added as a category?:

This article may be unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

.

The short answer is no. You are in fact the only one that has a problem with this article. Davidpdx 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I came here from the request for comment. I see no need for the bias tag. It looks to me like a very few editors are trying to promote a viewpoint by reverting the page to their preferred version. This is getting close to persistent vandalism. To the extent that there are legitimate disagreements about editing choices, I suggest starting with the version of 20 Oct by Gene Poole and taking it a paragraph at a time, only making changes that are supported by consensus. Tom harrison 00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There is actually only 1 editor promoting the pro-DOM agenda here: Johnski, who is using 2 sockpuppets, KAJ and SamuelSpade and various anonymous IPs. All other legitimate editors oppose the POV promoted by Johnski.--Gene_poole 00:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Determining that is beyond my paygrade, but if it is the case maybe you should move on to dispute resolution.

Violation of 3RR Rule

Johnski/207.47.122.10 you have violated the 3RR rule by reverting this page more then 4 times in 24 hours. Davidpdx 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Monothesistic Religion

While supporters of Melchizedek assert that it is an "ecclesiastical sovereignty," similar to Vatican City, and while its flag incorporates Christian, Jewish and Islamic symbols, Melchizedek intentionally possesses no established church although its citizens and monotheistic adherents are both called "Melchizedekians".

Implied by Melchizedek Bible's Introduction and Glossary.KAJ 15:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

After reading again, The Glossary, called "Key of David", it is more inclusive: "MELCHIZEDEKIAN: A citizen of the Dominion of Melchizedek; a spiritualized, sovereign person of peace and righteousness (Hebrews 7 & Revelation 1); 'As (a man) thinketh in his heart (that he is a Melchizedekian), so is he' (Proverbs 23:7)" KAJ 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Johnski

I have now documented and reported the sockpuppets used by user:Johnski: user:SamuelSpade, user:KAL user:207.47.122.10.

Accordingly, I will report violations of the 3RR rule if he continues to use them in an attempt to revert this page as well as others. Davidpdx 10:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How have you documented this? Can I document that Davidpdx is a sockpuppet of Gene_Poole simply by making such a claim?KAJ 11:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How about IP addresses and the fact I'm in South Korea? I have students that use logic better then you do and they speak English as a second language. What a complete idiot you are! Davidpdx 12:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I may not be as smart as your students in South Korea, but I'm not a complete idiot. What does being in South Korea have to do with this, and what do you learn from the IP addresses? Reveal the facts here, so others can see it too. I know there is no truth to what you claim regarding me. Do your students also post articles on Misplaced Pages? KAJ 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

If we can get an IP check performed I'll block for 3RR violations. Jdavidb (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

please publish the results so it can be verified that I am neither Johnski nor am I SamuelSpade. Thank you. KAJ 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What a strange coincidence! Four new editors appear on Misplaced Pages at the same time (Johnski, SamuelSpade, KAJ and Wiki-Facts), and do nothing else but promote an identical agenda across an identical series of articles (, , and ), all of which just happen to be connected to the fantasy "Dominion of Melchizedek". Truly this is evidence of the power of the almighty! The almighty con, that is. --Centauri 22:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't speak for Johnski or SamuelSpade, but my interests started with Jewish Science and Christian Science on Misplaced Pages, which brought me to Melchizedek and related interests. I started editing before making my handle, KAJ 17:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to attempt a bald-faced lie, you should at least try to make an effort at being convincing. Oh, and it's also a good idea to ensure that there isn't evidence to the contrary readily at hand, as that does tend to show you up somewhat. --Centauri 23:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Centauri: Thank you for giving me a chance to show you what my first contributions where before I made my handle. It gave me the idea to proudly display it on my User page. Please notice that there has been no double voting between my user name and the IP address I used. On Jewish Science, the article I started, I didn't even vote. But I noticed that Davidpdx was the only vote to delete, probably because he noticed that an IP address that supported the version of DOM he didn't support, started it. I'm sure you will find this somehow to be further evidence for your argument. Nevertheless, I hope that we can learn to be more polite to one another in the future better using Wikiquette. Are you also willing to reveal your IP address to show your good faith? KAJ 23:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Just the facts

Mr. Harrison: took a day off to think (and further study the subject), and agree with you to take a point at a time, the first being the opening line:

"The Dominion of Melchizedek is a micronation known for being directly linked to large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world."

There are four problems with this line. The first is that I've used every source available to me including Nexis Lexis to find a legitimate source for this statement, and can only find the opposite, being that no direct link can be found. It seems more likely that the Wikipedian author of that statement wants it to be true, not that it is true, or published in any reputable source.

Looking through the history of the Talk page, someone there asked for evidence of this "fact" and there was no reply.

The only fact that I can find is that Melchizedek is known for the frauds that have been linked to the banks it has licensed. An example of the difference would be that of the banks that Saipan licensed. Saipan banks, including Merchant Bank, the one that the Pedlies were involved in, had allegations of fraud brought against them. However, if the publicity that those banks gained from those allegations, affected Saipan, it wouldn't make Saipan known for being directly linked to those frauds, unless the government of Saipan was running the fraudulent banks in question. In the case of Melchizedek banks, the government of Melchizedek, including its founders have never be arrested or charged with any frauds having to do with any of the banks they licenced. Even in the civil case of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against a lawyer in New York, neither Melchizedek nor any of its officals were sued in that case. In other cases, the U.S. S.E.C. has sued micronations and thier founders, such as "Prince Lazarus" of "New Utopia".

Second, Melchizedek, according to reliable sources, including the Washington Post has been diplomatically recognized by a world government, yet the opening line in the micronation article states that micronations have not been recognized by any world governments. Because of this conflict it seems that either the micronation article needs to be changed to indicate one exception, or change the Melchizedek opening line to "entity". There should be no objection to this because a micronation can also be an entity. Melchizedek has been recognized as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" which would be the best definition because it is a published fact according to reputable news media. As a middle ground, saying that Melchizedek is an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood, seems reasonable.

Third, Melchizedek claims to be "an ecclesiastical government" and "an ecclesiastical sovereignty", therefore it is at least aspiring to be such, if not already there.

Fourth, the opening line gives any reader the caveat emptor, due to the word "fraud" appearing there highlighted. So the argument that giving a factual, fair and balanced account about Melchizedek will give credibility to it, doesn't hold up, especially since the center of the article quotes someone as saying that the entire Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud.

This is my recommended text for the first line:

"The Dominion of Melchizedek is an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood, and is known for the licensing of banks that fraudulently operated in many parts of the world."

Please feel free to find a middle ground or completely new opening line. KAJ 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

How about this: The Dominion of Melchizedek is a micronation ostensibly aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood. It is known for having licensed banks that fraudulently operated in many parts of the world. One of its founders (specify who, with link) was involved in the attempted secession of the Fijian island of Rotuma. Tom harrison 23:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That looks better. I believe the founder that was involved in the attempted secession of Rotuma is Ben David Pedley but he apparently changed hs name to, "Tzemach Ben David Netzer Korem" but can't find an article about him. Should I start one? KAJ 23:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

David Even Pedley is being considered for deletion, though I think it ought to be kept. It might be better to not start another article until the status of that one is resolved. Any relevent biographical information here could go here, if supported by consensus. Tom harrison 00:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an agreement among many editors that DOM stuff should stay on one page. That is why three pages (not just one) that Johnski, (aka KAJ, aka Samuelspade), has created are have a rfd to delete them. He is simply using an end around to push DOM on other articles because he knows he does not have consensus on this one. I will continue to rfd new articles he creates and if I don't, I guarentee other editors will. Davidpdx 01:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Archieve Page

The archieve page is NOT to be edited. All new comments need to be put on the current page. I have and will continue to revert the archieve page if it is vandalized. Davidpdx 01:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx, there are a lot of rules on Misplaced Pages, and it would help to cite those rules, as I am not willing at this point to take your word for it. I hope that we can become more civil and learn to edit here according to the Wikiquette.

The editing there was only to ask questions that I had after reading that apparently vandalized page. I hope that wasn't you that vandalized that page using your IP address. I've disclosed my IP address on my user page. Perhaps you would be willing to do the same. KAJ 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop playing game Johnski, you know the rules and you know how to read. Davidpdx 03:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How to proceed?

A convincing case can be made that sock puppets or meat puppets have been used here in the past. That has been disruptive; If there is any more of it, I think the next step has to be formal action.

It's not my place to insist that other editors agree to anything; But there are conditions that need to exist, just for any of us to be able to work here. I think some of those conditions are:

• No sock-puppetry;
• No changes without consensus;
• Sign all comments;
• Be brief.

I may have moved too fast in suggesting edits before there was a consensus. The first thing I think we need to know is, do people think there should be any changes at all right now? Or would it be better to let everything stabilize for a while? I would appreciate it if everyone interested would reply with their opinion. Thanks, Tom harrison 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Harrison: since you seem clearly not to be a sock-puppet, I hope that your suggestions will be taken more seriously by Davidpdx and those that seem to agree with him. He wrote somewhere that he has requested help in resolving these issues. I wonder if the edit war won't heat up again if we leave this alone. I think it is better to take a paragraph at a time and let Davidpdx and others showing an interest to give their reasonable input for not using your first draft suggested above. I noticed that there have been others besides those claimed to be engaging in sock-puppetry that have edited the version opposed by Davidpdx, however, it could be they were only editing the last version without making comparision. KAJ 22:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tom, I agree with what you are saying in principal. However, as I have said if recent history continues to be true the same things will take place. I hope you had a chance to look through the history as I have suggested.

I think what this will do is set off is more reverts by Johnski (aka KAJ/Samuelspade, etc) in which he will suddenly claim he has 7-10 people who support his version that don't exsist. It is not just me that is skeptical, but other users as well. You'll find quite a few other users that are going to oppose the changes Johnski will start to push. He'll state over and over again that I'm unwilling to work with him, but it is indeed he who reverts without consensus.

When you try to work with someone who doesn't follow the rules, then why bother? Davidpdx 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

David; Yes, I have read through the acrhive and done a little poking around. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll take your comments to mean that you do not support making any significant changes at this time. Please let me know if I've misunderstood. Tom harrison 13:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Tom, that is correct. I was at one point trying to work with Johnski, but like I said he (nor his other personalities) were not willing to abide by the rules of Misplaced Pages. That is one of the reasons I have taken such a hard line against the changes at this point. The other thing is that there are other creditable users who will oppose this as well, they are the same people who have helped revert the material that Johnski (has his other personalities) have constantly put in this article through reverts (over 60 times in two months) without consensus. Davidpdx 16:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

only micronation to be diplomatically recognized

It seems that Melchizedek should be shown as being unique in that it is the only microation known to be diplomatically recognized by a world government.

The Dominion of Melchizedek is the first micronation to have been diplomatically recognized by any world governemnt.

Then move on to the stuff about its banks being linked to worldwide fraud. KAJ 17:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)