Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:10, 16 November 2005 editDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 edits →request for additional information added to page← Previous edit Revision as of 14:12, 16 November 2005 edit undoDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 edits →request for additional information added to pageNext edit →
Line 393: Line 393:
::::If your not willing to accept the full terms of this idea, then don't. That means no editing at all until the arbitration case is finished. That might be as long as two weeks. It looks like we have two cases in front of us, but three of the arbitrators have voted whether or not to accept, so it's hard to say for sure. Does anyone object to this idea? ] 19:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) ::::If your not willing to accept the full terms of this idea, then don't. That means no editing at all until the arbitration case is finished. That might be as long as two weeks. It looks like we have two cases in front of us, but three of the arbitrators have voted whether or not to accept, so it's hard to say for sure. Does anyone object to this idea? ] 19:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


:::If that's addressed to me, I think the paragraph needs more work than simply removing the quote. But as I've said, I'm not editing this page till the arbitration is over. If that was addressed to Johnski, never mind. -] 20:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) :::::If that's addressed to me, I think the paragraph needs more work than simply removing the quote. But as I've said, I'm not editing this page till the arbitration is over. If that was addressed to Johnski, never mind. -] 20:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


:::Hello Davidpdx, if you were talking to me, sure, remove the quote from the WP about state of denial for now, while arb goes on and I'll leave it alone, but will you friends agree to that? I've already told Tom, I'd hold off for now, but if you can show that good faith, go for it. Sincerely, ] 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC) :::::Hello Davidpdx, if you were talking to me, sure, remove the quote from the WP about state of denial for now, while arb goes on and I'll leave it alone, but will you friends agree to that? I've already told Tom, I'd hold off for now, but if you can show that good faith, go for it. Sincerely, ] 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


::::Yes, I was. Give me a few days. I'm trying to figure out if we should remove the quote or put the words back in as you stated. ] 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC) :::::Yes, I was. Give me a few days. I'm trying to figure out if we should remove the quote or put the words back in as you stated. ] 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


:::::As an addendum to the above conversation, the offer was to see if I could put together a group of people (at least five) willing to think about the offer, and was not a solid promise of anything. I have since contacted people and got a very lackluster response in terms of others willing to agree to this. ::::::As an addendum to the above conversation, the offer was to see if I could put together a group of people (at least five) willing to think about the offer, and was not a solid promise of anything. I have since contacted people and got a very lackluster response in terms of others willing to agree to this.


:::::I firmly believe the arbitration case will get accepted. Last time I checked it was one vote short of going forward. I am still asking that no one edit this article (as well as the two others) until arbitration is finished. My hope is people will stick to that and not start messing with it. ::::::I firmly believe the arbitration case will get accepted. Last time I checked it was one vote short of going forward. I am still asking that no one edit this article (as well as the two others) until arbitration is finished. My hope is people will stick to that and not start messing with it.


:::::As a side note, I moved some of the comments around and tried to offset them to make the conversation in this section readable to some point. It's getting really bad in terms of figuring out who said what to whom. ] 14:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) ::::::As a side note, I moved some of the comments around and tried to offset them to make the conversation in this section readable to some point. It's getting really bad in terms of figuring out who said what to whom. ] 14:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)




Revision as of 14:12, 16 November 2005

Previous discussions:

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)

I'm confused. The letter you linked to says: "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."
There is nothing positive in this letter. It says DOM is unrecognized and that the licence it issued will again be revoked. It's entirely consistent with the statement by John Shockey. What do you see as the point of including it, Johnski? SlimVirgin 18:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello SlimVirgin, I just noticed that you responded to this item. When giving a source for a statement, I would think an official government web site would be higher and better than a person of the government agency being quoted by the press, as quotes can be inacurate and may not necessarily represent the official position of that agency. What is the difference between non-fat and regular milk? Both are milk. Let the reader decide if there is any significance to the reference to DOM on the official web site. The reason isn't so much to say that the OCC web site is saying something different, but what it says is official, whereas, statement to the press by its employee may only be personal opinion of that employee. If you, and as Jdavidb, think that this supports Shockey's opinion, why withhold it? Sincerely, Johnski 21:38, 13 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)
Mr. Davidpdx: Again, you ignore the issue of what I am asking about, the US OCC issue. Yes, you and others have reverted edits without valid reasons, but I don't know that this issue of the US OCC has been dealt with as a seperate issue. If it has, please show me the text of the talk, and if not, please deal with it directly and please do NOT ignore it as you are doing now.KAJ 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
You are the one that in fact is ignorning reality, which is the fact you (not I) reverted pages with out consensus Johnski. As I will state once again, you have failed to follow the rules. Either you stop or further action will be taken against you. Davidpdx 19:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

] doesn't work. Also, this is an attempt to take the complete NON-recognition of DOM by that website and pretend it is somehow in contrast to the official who also said that it isn't recognized. If that were to be inserted, it should instead read

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."
The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website only refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.

In this way it would be clear that these two facts both reinforce the claim that DOM is a fraud rather than implying that pointing out DOM's non-recognized status somehow refutes it.

Note that you don't yet have consensus for this change. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Jdavidb: This shows good faith and a real effort on your part. The reason for putting in the word, "However" is due to the fact that we know the web site is really that of the US OCC, but the statement attributed to Mr. Shockey is on a web site that anyone could have created. I found places on the Internet that discredit the owner of that private web site. They claim that Mr. Addkisson is arrogant, pompus, has alterior motives to get clients for his tax planning business, etc. Can we stress somehow that the quotation is from a private web site in order to contrast it with the statement that is from an official government web site? We could take a more reliable source for quoting Mr. Shockey, i.e. the Washington Post, but in that case we would have to give the quote of the WP asking who's to say its phony since it has disputed homeland, etc., and the offical US OCC to follow as well to show balance, most reliable sources, and remove bias.KAJ 19:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Why shouldn't this be the final for now:
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."
The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website only refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.
Kaj, can you supply a link to the WP article, please? SlimVirgin 18:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
SV, I found it here: http://www.melchizedek.com/press/war-france.htm Rriter 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Ms. SlimVirgin: You can get a cleaner version from Nexis-Lexis that doesn't have inserts like "(what religion)". It is confusing because some of the other inserts are part of the article. KAJ 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Wow, no surprise ANOTHER Johnski SOCKPUPPET. It's it interesting someone asks KAJ something and then Rriter (who is a realtively new user) answers. What an idiot. Davidpdx 09:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Johnski can't you grasp the concept of CONSENSUS? Or is that too difficult for you? You can not just add stuff willy nilly because you think it is legitimate, especially if others disagree. Get that through your damn head! Davidpdx 09:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: You might be wise to slow down on your accusations until it can be proven that anyone that has an interest in DOM that doesn't express your point of view is a sock-puppet, and reconsider the way you start your talk with a stranger.KAJ 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
You might be wise to stop creating sockpuppets. They are hurting your creditablity. Davidpdx 20:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Dominion of Melchizedek and related pages

There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the above page 60+ times in the last two months.

Johnski is strongly believed to be an active member of Dominion of Melchizedek, as he possesses an intimate familiarity with details of court cases and other historical matters pertaining to it that few, if any, outsiders would be privy to. As a primary source and should not be contributing to any articles on this subject, in accordance with Misplaced Pages general editing principles.

He has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. To justify his reverts, he claims that his version has consensus, and that the prior version is biased. He has also used numerous sock puppets to revert the above page, and to introduce Melchizedek-related promotional content into many other articles as well, including: Bokak Atoll, Karitane Shoal, Solkope, Rotuma, Clipperton Island, Antarctica, Micronation, Fictional country, Bible, Melchizedek, Melchizedekian, Ecclesiastical state and David Even Pedley.

When challenged by other editors Johnski selectively quotes media reports out of context in order to put a positive spin on consistently extremely negative reportage about Melchizedek. He consistently seeks to insert these out-of-context quotations into the above articles to provide what he alledges is "balanced" reportage, and has attempted to delete quotations which show Melchizedek in a negative light.

Johnski does not follow the rules of Misplaced Pages and frankly changes them in order to push his own agenda. Additionally, his presumed association with a group known for defrauding people in many parts of the world of millions of dollars is a negative reflection on Misplaced Pages, and should be curtailed.

Users complaning about Johnski's behavior:

Making a Complaint against the following:

Davidpdx 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: Is this all that is necessary to request mediation? Mediation is a good idea, if someone is willing to mediate.KAJ 18:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: Why did you change it to Arbitration?KAJ 18:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note the above has been updated based on recommendation of those making the complaint. Davidpdx 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note the document above is the most recent updated version of the complaint. The versions shown on the Bokak Atoll page may not reflect recent changes. Davidpdx 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense!Don't call me sockpuppet. All of my edits and reverts were in good faith. Show us where Johnski or myself ever showed any knowledge that isn't public infomration. SamuelSpade 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
If you want to call reverting a page without consensus nonsense, that's fine by me. It's time you and whomever else is adding material to these pages (notice I'm being nice about it) follow the rules. That's all we ask. If you do that, then there is no arbitration and we'll back off. The ball is squarely in your court. Davidpdx 06:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see, being "a curious neutral" both sides appear to be abusing each other equally. Can someone totally neutral rewrite the article with comments on "X states" and "Y states" which should resolve the matter (as far as us curious neutrals are concerned).

That's what some of us have been trying to do. Unfortunately Johnski has been continually trying to mis-quote media sources to put a positive spin on negative reporting about Melchizedek. This is basically like trying to prove that black is white. It's deliberately misleading and is calculated to confuse people unfamiliar with the discussion - which is why further action is now necessary. --Gene_poole 05:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The focus needs to stay on the arbitration and the impact the constant reverts have on the articles listed. As I've said, there are many people who are troubled by the things going on in terms of revert war. Unless certain people agree to stop reverting articles, we will be going forward with arbitration. I look forward to hearing from all of you that are listed as complainants. Davidpdx 09:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: You did not have consensus to add fraud as a category, just did it. I'm not reverting this page, just trying to get it more factual and balanced using the last unprotected article. Taking into consideration arguments that have been made, i.e. "However" for example.KAJ 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Johnski, I added one category which was fraud. I did NOTHING else to the article. You reverted the article to the entire article to your version that you call "more factual and balanced." This WAS not the article that was here when this page was unprotected. Again, you have skewed the truth. Balance it out, I added one category, while you changed the entire page. Which is worse? Of course you'll say what I did.
This is exactly why we are moving on to arbitration. You have been given a chance to change and you refuse to do so. I've been reading on what some of the outcomes of arbitration are and I find it very interesting. I guess your willing to gamble that your above the rules of Misplaced Pages. Davidpdx 10:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: Please don't call me by someone else's user name. I was told to boldy edit where there was lack of balance, etc. What I just did was edit not revert. I spent time to do that, whereas you took a second without trying to see if there was any merit to my work and errased it. I used the last unprotected page returned by Ms. SlimVirgin to use as my basis, and didn't revert to any older version.KAJ 11:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, since you had such a big deal about it, I removed the fraud category. I'm willing to bet my entire month's paycheck you'll revert this again within a day or two. Will you actually show good faith and put your stuff on the talk page? Of course not! Davidpdx 11:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
You stated on the summary: "Mr. Davidpdx: Please show some effort in looking at my work, to see if there is anything you agree with with. Do you know how to compare articles to see the changes? Do some work on this or quit." I ask you yet again, where the heck do you see that you have consensus??? Davidpdx 11:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As an update, the case for arbitration has gone forward. If you would like to contribute or look at the case you can go here: Davidpdx 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

more factual balanced article is the goal, working toward consensus

Mr. Davidpdx: No need to bet since I've already returned to the last edition hoping that you will actually look at the changes I made, which were not a simple reversion. Myself and Johnski have put most of this stuff on the talk page, and you've only played games with us, never showing any interest in compromise or reaching factual, fair and balanced article. I'm just asking you to look carefully at the changes, and let me know what you have problems with and why. Consensus is just a word you use for blocking my honest attempts at a more factual balanced article. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. There is no consensus for the article you keep reverting to, and hopefully artibration will reveal your stubborness to work for a better article.KAJ 11:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is just that, a revert that has nothing to do with the of the material that has consensus. You continue to revert the article despite not having consensus. If you want to talk about someone playing games, go in the bathroom and look in the mirror. Again, just more proof how dishonest and unwilling you are to follow the rules. Davidpdx 12:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
KAJ, you cut "The Washington Post, have identified it as a ruse". The tittle of the Washington Post article was "The Ruse that Roared". This is from the film "The mouse that roared". In that case the mouse was a miniscule state. However for the Washington Post DOM is not even a mouse but a ruse. That's just one example of why I think the revert was justified.Dejvid 23:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Dejvid, I didn't see where KAJ cut the WP out only changed it from ruse to dubious as I have attempted to do. This is more consistent with the fact that Forbes actually used the word "dubious" in 2000 when referring to DOM in an article, and the WP article only had the title as "Ruse", but if you read the whole article it gives the feeling of "dubious" more than "ruse", especially, since the actual article gives two opinions, "may merely be a ruse" and "may be the ultimate post-modern state." Why only hightlight one point? You need to read the article to realize that the "ruse" would be a nuclear war on France. The story of the "Mouse that Roared" also involved an imaginary war but on the U.S. from an imaginary European microstate. After the article in the WP appeared, (which showed that the war was really spiritual and a protest against nuclear testing in the South Pacific, France quit nuclear testing ahead of their schedule. Sincerely, Johnski 02:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
After looking at the article and looking at the changes that were made, Dejvid should have stated that KAJ incorrectly implied that the Washington Post article identified DOM as dubious. This is indeed not correct. I have read the article and WP never used the word "dubious" in the article. This is a misquote of the article. There is a big difference between ruse and dubious.
The article is not just labeling the imaginary war with France a ruse, but the entire idea that DOM exsists. Any attempt to change the article back to the way KAJ phrased it is fraud. Maybe that's a word you'll understand. Davidpdx 03:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
You must be reading a different article than I read. If you notice, the last edition I rewrote quoted exactly from WP the only place it called DOM a Ruse which was the title of the article, but don't forget the article also said that DOM "may merely be a ruse" and "may be the ultimate post modern state" and it is "no gag". So where does it say that DOM doesn't exist? You and I can have the opinion that that is what the article says, but if we exactly quote from it we're not giving our opinion, and if the article says two or in this case thress different possibilities, we have to quote all those to give balance. Do you dispute that a Forbes article called DOM "a junk country" or that it called it "dubious"? Can you show me where it used the word, "ruse"? Johnski 06:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

10 November 2005 rewrite

I'm neither a member of the Dominion of Melchizedek nor a victim of any of its alleged activities and I have no axe to grind. Obviously there is a lot of history to the various versions of this article which I haven't been involved in, haven't read, and, frankly, don't intend to. I've gone through and made wording and sequence changes purely with the intention of bringing a newcomer or outsider's perspective to this article. Though I have reordered the sections, I have neither added nor deleted any substantive information, except for fixing the name and pseudonyms of Mark Logan Pedley. The version I worked off of was Davidpdx's last version of 9 November 2005, which was, according to its edit summary, a version that was live at a time this page was protected. I hope regular editors of this article (on both sides) will perceive these changes as both NPOV and stylistic improvements. If not, I'm sure someone will revert and no harm done. -EDM 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I've changed a couple of words, but overall your changes are great. --Gene_poole 23:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, this is a great change. Just a note, the article wasn't written by me, but has been reverted by myself and others many times. Davidpdx 02:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello Gene, Davidpdx and our new editor, EDM, I agree that these are great changes, however, there are some major issues that concern balance, facts, fairness, left untouched, as EDM may not be familiar with these items, for which I'll use KAJ's last edition as a basis to make my points:

I think it is important to point out that "The Pedleys were each convicted and imprisoned for various frauds unrelated to Melchizedek during the 1980s, for which they maintained their innocence." Otherwise the reader would be led to think that the fraud convictions were connected to Melchizedek, and since they maintained their "innocence", that gives balance. I think I read somewhere that two of the Pedley cases were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And there was a Sacramento Bee article around 15 years ago, that quoted a then U.S. Marshal that the Pedley case was politically motivated, which could classify the Pedley's as political prisoners at one extreme of the argument. Also, it is enough to say "multiple fraud convictions" since I can't find where they were both convicted of land fraud, or share fraud.

Should be "All of these territories, except for Karitane", as Karitane is not claimed by any other government.

Should be were "already claimed by, or dependencies of recognized states" as Rotuma is an semi autonomous dependency, not as possession, and Solkope is apparently uninhabited. This took place in 2000 so the opening in the 1990s isn't 100% accurate.

It is said that possession is 9/10th of the law, so if these islands are uninhabited, with the exception of Malpelo, how can they be possessions?

Should say, "None of these claims appear to be recognized by any established government" as we haven't taken a poll of all of the nations, and the DOM web site displays copies of treaties of peace and recognition with recognized governments that incorporated reference to Antarctica and the islands of Melchizedek. What other islands could they be referring to?

The reason that I believe that it is wrong to say that the Washington Post and Forbes call it a ruse, is that while the article in the WP was entitled the "Ruse that Roared" the article itself had two opinions, that it "MAY merely be a ruse" and it "MAY be the ultimate post-modern state." And Forbes has called it "dubious" but never used the word, "ruse". Balance requires, fairness and being factual for each issue, doesn't it?

Regarding the over 300 would-be investors that have lost money in purported investments, isn't it important that those operations were never run by the government of Melchizedek or the Pedley's but only by the banks it licensed, which is a huge difference? Even the media has pick up on this point.

From a legal standpoint should the part about the SEC include both the beginning and end of that case, namely:

In the opening of a civil action against a New York lawyer, the Dominion of Melchizedek was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. . After the SEC settled that case, instead of referring to DOM as "non-existent", it wrote, the "Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments."

Shouldn't this statement below by Shockey be balanced with the only official statement from the US OCC Director where it only calls Melchizedek a "non-recognized sovereignty that licensed Caribbean Bank of Commerce"?:

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." The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website only refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.

Regarding Gillespie, shouldn't it be pointed out that the arrests were never followed by convictions and that the DOM web site points out that Gillespie was not authorized to sell citizenship or jobs?

BTW, I can't find where DOM was ever sued, or where any official of DOM was ever arrested or convicted of any crime while acting on behalf of DOM.

Regarding the article in the Washington Post noting that The Dominion of Melchizedek was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, if you leave out "you get the feeling", it gives the reader the false impression that it is more than a "feeling" which the WP probably wouldn't like being falsely quoted about a UN member state. There is a big difference between saying that something would probably happen than getting the feeling that something might happen. If it was that easy to get a letter of official and formal diplomatic recognition from CAR, you can be sure that other micronations would have followed with such a letter.

I can't find any source that has called DOM a hoax in the past decade, so why do we "See also: Hoax". The WP concluded that DOM "is no gag", although France need not worry since DOM would not sweep the Olympics.

Gene, DOM's currency was quoted on Bloomberg according to Forbes, and CBS. CBS website said something like "DOM claims to be an ecclesiastical sovereignty based on the old testament, but it has received more recognition as a "tax haven." and I believe, if memory serves, their currency is either called "Dominion Dollars" or "Melchizedek Dollars". Why did you change "established" to "created"? And BTW, Context Magazine pointed to the 1950s as the time when it was founded. I believe conceived in the 1950s is a logical way to point to its origins. However, it wasn't really founded or formally established until its constitution was signed in 1991.

There are a few other issues, but this is more than enough for now. Sincerely, Johnski 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Should be "All of these territories, except for Karitane", as Karitane is not claimed by any other government. ...nice try Johnski. It's hardly surprising that Karitane is not claimed by anyone given that it's a mid-ocean reef located under 9 metres of water. This article isn't about Atlantis, and unless DOM's members have grown gills, I doubt they're going to be spending much time on this "territory". --Centauri 11:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but I suppose they could do a fishing operation there, or a "New Utopia" concept, but it still should NOT say that Karitane is claimed by someone else when it isn't. That brings up another point, Gene says they have 50 members, but I think they claim 50 government officials and something around ten thousand citizens (not sure if that includes corporate citizens) and there is no way to know how many citizens they really have, as they also claim to be a "transnational nation-state" promoting the concept of dual citizenship, and the CBS story said they don't believe in numbering their citizens, based on some old testament teaching. Sincerely, Johnski 12:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think all these points have been hashed and rehased many times. If you look at the archieve I asked you proof for regarding the currency of DOM. I have not seen any documented proof, other then the currency being mentioned on the DOM website.
It was mentioned in a 1990 Forbes article entitle "Father of his Country" that DOM's currency was listed or quoted on Bloomberg. Do you know what The Bloomberg is, that was founded by the current governor or mayor of New York? It was also mentioned in the CBS news story sampled further below. Wait a minute, Forbes called it a "country" and so did CBS for that matter. So should that fact also be added to this article.
Again the SEC document you quote, does not say what you are implying it does. Myself and others have said this many times. The SEC and the United States Government do not recongnized DOM in any way. Implying anything close to that is fraud in itself.
I'm not trying to imply recongition only giving balance to the fact that the SEC made a different comment at the end of the case than at its beginning, and am quoting what they said word for word! How is that wrong? Isn't wrong to withold this balance of the complete facts?
Lastly, if someone has been convicted of a crime (and I don't care if it's Mr. Pedley or Martha Stewart), they can feel free to claim their innocence all they want. However, the fact is they were convicted by a court of law. Short of the conviction being overturned on appeal, they are still guilty of whatever crime they have been convicted of. Davidpdx 10:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but in the United States after a person serves his or her time in prison, he or she paid his or her debt for the crime, but you don't seem to recongize that fact. Under the LAW the person was (not is) guilty, but in FACT may really be innocent. Also, the reason that a person may maintain his or her innocense is that it is a well known fact that some of those convicted are actually not guilty; and in penalty of death cases, where it is critical to prove your innocense, after roting for decades in prison, individuals have been found to be innocent due to various factors. Let's see if the Martha Stewart article mentions that she maintains her innocence? The fact that a U.S. Marshal claimed that the Pedley case was politically motived, points to something other than a valid conviction. But you missed the more important point that their convictions had nothing to do with Melchizedek which should be mentioned not to mislead the reader. I can't find anywhere that the charges against them were either "share fraud" or "land fraud", but I found "financial fraud" in the CBS article. Notice that CBS apparently recognized the short version of his legal name change and never refered to him as "Pedley".
Hello Davidpdx, When CBS 60 Minutes II aired in 2000, a portion of the story here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/10/60II/main182244.shtml 

it made the regular fraud claims (which we all know about) but it also pointed out:
  • (CBS) The Dominion of Melchizedek is an unusual country. No one lives there, and it doesn't appear on any maps. But it is home to hundreds of banks and other financial institutions. Banking is how the Dominion makes its bread and butter.
  • According to David Korem, a self-declared prophet who founded the Dominion in 1990, the country's real purpose is religious and spiritual. But some say the country is actually a haven for swindlers and con artists. 60 Minutes II's Bob Simon reports.
  • "We unofficially claim that all of the earth is under our jurisdiction," Korem says. "We claim that Jerusalem is our homeland."
  • He claims that Melchizedek is a religious sovereignty, mandated by the Old Testament. The Dominion lays claim to an island in the South Pacific, which is literally below water.
  • Korem says he isn't sure of the exact spot. "I don't know," he says. "I haven't been there. But I have eyewitnesses that tell me they've been there, and they've seen something above sea level."
  • Though invisible at high tide, the Dominion does have another home: the country's Web site. Korem's interim seat of power is his computer, in the lower level of his house in California. The site displays the Dominion flag, its constitution and its bill of rights.
  • Korem says he has appointed at least 100 officials to his ecclesiastical Dominion, awarding them diplomatic and political credentials. One official is the "minister of entertainment."
  • Korem has so far not succeeded in winning recognition from the United Nations.
  • The Dominion has done a lot better being recognized as a financial center.
  • Korem says it has been home to more than 300 banks.
  • It has had its currency listed on Bloomberg and the Dominion itself is listed in Tax Havens of the World.
  • The Dominion can be both a financial center and a religious place, Korem says. "They're not contradictory, because as an ecclesiastical sovereignty, we don't believe in taxation," he says.
  • "I don't think any person unless they believe in the tooth fairy would believe this," says John Shockey, who spent 50 years working for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees banking in the United States. Recently retired, he says the Dominion is a scam. He has tried for the last 10 years to put Melchizedek and its banks out of business.
  • Korem, though, insists the Dominion is not a haven for con artists. "Of the 300 banks we've licensed, there's only been a handful of them that have gotten into trouble," he says. "Only a couple of them got into serious trouble."
  • But while Dominion officials have gotten in trouble with the law for Melchizedek-related frauds, Korem has not.
  • The State Department can't prosecute. It could advise the president or Congress to declare war, but that seems unlikely.
  • In fact, both Korem and his father have served time for financial fraud. The pair worked as a team until Korem's father supposedly died about 15 years ago. Some believe he is still alive.
  • "His father suddenly died very, very suddenly without any prior warning," says Tomko. " there was a warrant out for his arrest. His untimely death brought a dismissal of all the outstanding charges."
  • Both Tomko and Shockey think the elder Korem is still alive, probably in the United States. Korem, however, says that he hasn't seen his father for more than 15 years.
  • The Dominion's minister of architecture has been drawing up elaborate plans for the island, even if some of the buildings will only be accessible with scuba gear.
  • But no one is sure how many citizens the country has. Korem says that the Bible counsels against taking a census. He also won't say how much money the country makes selling documents.
End of portions of the CBS story. Sincerely, Johnski 04:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I am again unwilling to work with you, because you continue to revert articles despite on going conversations on the talk page. This in its self is an act of bad faith. You have again burned yourself (figuaritiviely speaking) in terms of being heard by others. I don't care if it's you or someone else, this page has been continually abused by those who wish to push a pro-DOM agenda. You've boxed yourself in a corner with no allies other then yourself. Davidpdx 05:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, I'm trying to work with you even though you have no interest in working with me, that is the difference between us. You only use my efforts to make a better article an excuse to say that I am merely reverting without consensus. You only look at one rule of Misplaced Pages and think only your view of it is right and you don't look at the other rules, or other views, like boldy editing to remove bias. When I prove something to you, that is how you get out of accepting the truth. Johnski 06:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to stay away from further editing to this article until the arbitration is concluded. -EDM 05:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging David Evan Pedley

Now that this article is cleaned up and looking a lot better, I think it's time to reopen the idea of a rfc in terms of merging David Even Pedley into this article. My thought is that despite anyone's opinion about DOM, it would enhance the article and also get rid of an unneeded second article.

Before I go through with the rfc, I'd like to open the floor for comments or concerns about this idea. Davidpdx 07:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My outsider's perspective is not to merge him into the article. We don't merge George Washington into United States or Bill Gates into Microsoft or even John Harvard (whose role is admittedly a little different from those other two) into Harvard University. -EDM 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the a lot of what is in David Even Pedley belongs here, but the rest should probably stay in a separate article. Apart from Melchizedek, Pedley has minor notability as a convicted felon.--Centauri 21:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I say we merge the lot into this article. The guy has no significance outside Melchizedek, and his early criminal activities merely set the stage for his later concoction of this shell "country" designed primarily to fleece the unwary or stupid. --Gene_poole 10:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think at this point we should table this conversation until the arbitration case is decided. Davidpdx 01:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverts without consensus

This is another fair warning about reverting without consensus. The article may have been changed a bit in the past few days (which I had nothing to do with), but that doesn't mean your changes have consensus. I again warn you, if you start a revert war, I will go forward with filing an arbitration claim. You can groan and moan all you want about whether or not the article if "fair and balanced" in your opinion, but it does not change the fact you are reverting without consensus. Davidpdx 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Davidpdx, since I am making actual edits and you are reverting without edits, it is you that is reverting not I, and you have no more consensus for your version than I have for mine. I also answered your questions in two other sections above. Sincerely, Johnski 06:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

request for additional information added to page

The section on "origin" actually doesn't contain any information at all about the origin of the dominion. How was it founded, who by, where is a map, what's its history, how is it alleged to be a sovreign state, what responses have other countries given via political channels to this, have any other countries not accepted its sovreignty? FT2 11:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

FT2, that in itself is part of the debate in terms of material added to this page. There is a rather long standing disagreement as to the facts. Some state that DOM goes back as far as the 1950's and others are stating it doesn't in fact exsist.
In terms of your question about which countries have recognized DOM as sovreign, again is a point of contention. Only one country, has actually recognized it diplomatically. Others will claim as many as 10 nations have recognized DOM, which isn't true. These people will also try to make it look as though the US has recognized DOM as well, which also isn't true. Davidpdx 11:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
That is, in Misplaced Pages terms, no excuse. In that case I'd expect to see a section that lists both sets of claims or information without judging them, even if it's just "view #1 says..." and "view #2 says..." A competent editor from either side should be able to neutrally add that, stating what each side sees, and/or criticisms about it.
Could that be added? FT2 08:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that "view 1" is the position taken by almost everyone in the world who is aware of "Melchizedek", while "view 2" is the position of 1 editor, unsupported by any evidence. --Centauri 09:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The other problem is those that have "view 2" wish to remove even creditable evidence as well as misquote articles that say one thing but would rather imply it says another. Case in point, The Washington Post article, Johnski wants to erase that the paper called it "a ruse" because it hurts the creditablity of his organization. He also wants to misquote US OCC to imply that the wording in a document is a form of recognition of DOM by the US government.
As Centauri pointed out, one editor is making a stink about the article. This editor has multiple accounts, which is EXACTLY why they have an arbitration case against them. I realize I may not have explained the situation very well, but I would caution you to get all the facts before you jump on someone about what they may or may not have done. Davidpdx 11:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
There's no jumping, and I'm aware of the arbitration case. It's how I found the article. So I sympathize all around. I am pointing out, neutrally, the obvious: such a paragraph can be written. That more people favor one view than the other doesn't change that I as a reader would genuinely like to learn about both views on the above question. Could someone - or two someones even - write the two different versions on the talk page if compromise can't be reached? Couldn't we say get a map showing where the (disputed or undisputed) territory is, even? Just for my own interest? Thanks :) FT2 02:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The point we are trying to get across is that 1 side is promoting a highly eccentric extreme minority opinion totally unsupported by facts or evidence. We do not give "equal time" to holocaust deniers vs most historians, or flat earthers vs round earthers simply because 2 groups of people disagree - in each case, one POV is generally and widely accepted and the other is not. We may mention the minority viewpoint, but we do not give it equal billing. This case is exactly the same. --Gene_poole 03:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The other point is, it has now been PROVEN that there are sockpuppets involved, which very much dents a certain person's creditablity. Although we don't know for sure which onces are or aren't, if you look at the arbitration case comments have been made that verify this point.
As GP said, the view expressed is a small minority and as pointed out, the person is making uncredible claims. I can't understand why for the life of me, why someone would advocate posting things that aren't true on Misplaced Pages. It would seriously damage the creditablity of the site of we were allow to post anything without verifiable proof. Davidpdx 06:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Until the arbitration case is settled, the best thing is to wait and see what the outcome is regarding it. Davidpdx 06:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, Your examples about the WP and US OCC above do not prove that I am trying to post anything that is untrue. What you are saying is only true of yourself. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello FT2, perhaps you could do this, as anything that comes from me, is automatically rejected. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
What you suggest is what I've been trying to do, but you can see the resistence. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Gene, The holocaust is an inane comparison. We only need to quote from credible sources, and the source of this subject, DOM itself. Even using Gene's wacky comparison, if you have the subject of the holocaust, you need to give the evil view point of wicked Hitler, and the actions of his Third Reich to understand what led to the holocaust. You can even point out that there are holocaust deniers, no matter how wacky they are.
Even though it has been assumed by SlimVirgin that SamuelSpade is my sock-puppet, that doesn't make it true, nor that of one arbitrator saying wack all of them, since there is no proof and none can be found about me. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to prove anyting according to my understanding of the way Misplaced Pages works, only quote from credible sources. Context Magazine, has stated Melchizedek's foundations go back to the 1950s and gives small details. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There is confusion of the difference between defacto recognition and dejure recognition. Defacto recognition can be as simple as a statement from one government about another government, or an act. There are many levels of this type of recognition. We only need to quote credible sources, and let the reader decide. Since the DOM itself is the subject of the article, its official web site can also be quoted. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No, We only need to quote credible sources, and the position of DOM is also important since the story is about DOM, so their web site can be quoted as well. Some of it is in there, but it isn't complete enough or fully balanced, and parts are not factual, such as the quote from Washington Post using the word, "probably" when it should be "you get the feeling". I haven't been trying to add new content so much as make it more accurate and balanced with the stuff that is there. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Davidpdx, the title of the article is "Ruse that Roared" but the actual article says that it "may merely be a ruse" and that it "may be the ultimate post modern state" but Davidpdx and Gene don't want those facts in the article to give it balance. One of the reasons that the word "ruse" is wrong, because it is lumped in with Forbes which called it "dubious" and a "junk country", not a "ruse". The title of the WP article could have been referring to the physical war on France, but it is just a title, and it doesn't say "Melchizedek, The Ruse that Roared". In my last edition I showed that it is a title and quoted it exactly. Take a look. It is not my organization. I have not misquoted the US OCC. The US OCC web site only refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that licensed a bank. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
In other words, let progress die, while they try to kill the messenger of having a more fair, balanced and accurate article. They shouldn't succeed, so you should not worry about being their next victim. Sincerely, Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Johnski, first of all it is rude and intrusive to put comments inbetween user comments. There is a reason WHY the commments are signed, which is so that people can tell who said what. This is just common sense. You should go back and fix that. If you don't, I will. I would however, prefer you to fix it instead.
Second, it has been now VERIFIED that there are sockpuppets being used to edit this article. I can tell you with 100% certainity, that none of the nine names listed as filing the arbitration complaint are being investigated for using sockpuppets to edit this article. I wonder who else it could be? Perhaps you should take a look at SamuelSpade's profile, who has now been proven as a sockpuppet.
Third, you are misquoting sources, the US OCC is a perfect example. You are trying to state that the US has recognized DOM. You don't even deny it, which is even funnier. It's clearly part of your agenda to make it look like DOM is recognized by all of the countries you have listed, regardless of the proof.
Fourth, and honestly, this should be a given, no one should be editing this article while we are waiting for the outcome of arbitration. If need be, I'll ask for a TRO or to have the article protected. I shouldn't have to do this and I don't want to.
As stated Raul stated on the arbitration page, you need to start cooperating. If you can't, then my best advice is to leave. Otherwise, your going to get banned. This is absoultely free advice and I'm saying this in the nicest way I can at this point. Myself as well as others are frustrated with your antics and the problems you cause. It's NOT just me, you have seen the other names on the arbitration filing. I know you want to believe I have this vendetta against you, but it's NOT true. At the same time, other editors are not going to let one person, add things that are highly questionable at best (and again notice I'm being nicer in the language). Davidpdx 13:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, first of all, I didn't mean to be rude, and that is why I signed each section posted by me. I just moved all of my stuff to one section, but now it is harder to understanding what I was referring to, but since you were so polite I took the time to make you happy on this issue.
Second, it has NOT been VERIFIED that there are sockpuppets being used to edit this article by me. How can you tell me with 100% certainity, that none of the nine names listed as filing the arbitration complaint are being investigated for using sockpuppets to edit this article? And why shouldn't they be?
Third, I don't want the US OCC web site misquoted, only included. I'm not asking that the article state that the US has recognized DOM. It is only my opinion that the US OCC calling DOM a "non-reccognized soverignty" is a very low level of defacto recognition, but isn't significant and am not asking that my opinion be in the article. My only "agenda" if you want to call it that, is to see that the article does not misquote and that it is fair and balanced. What countries have I listed that recognize DOM? I've only put forth the agrument that we can only be sure of one and that is CAR, as it has been noted by a credible source, i.e. the WP. We can say that according to the DOM web site it has other recognition and give details of what, when, where and why that it made those claims of recognition.
Fourth, and honestly, why should we wait to correct misquotes from the WP for example? Is there some rule you can lead me to that states, don't edit while in arbitration? Did you notice that someone doesn't want the WP article to be accurately quoted, or protrayed regarding whether it is just a feeling or that they would "probably" recognize?
Fifth, I did not see where Raul stated on the arbitration page, I need to start cooperating. I think he said if I don't behave in the future, to whack me. I notice that you are being a little nicer in your language. Thank you, but it would help if you tried a little harder to see what I'm trying to say and do and give at least an inch if not a mile.
Finally, here is the exact quote from the WP that is falsely quoted:
"You get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."
There is a major difference between saying that someone would "probably" do someting and saying "you get the felling" they would do something. You might get the feeling that a stranger is mad at you and could yell at you if that feeling was correct. That would be different than knowing that a stranger is mad at you, and that he probably would yell at you. Or you might get the feeling peace will take foot in Israel because of the recent progress with Palestine, but that would be different than saying that it probably will take hold, due to that progress. Sincerely, Johnski 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Thinking about how to treat the Washington Post quote has occupied most of my commuting time for a couple of days now. I've gone back and forth between favoring deleting the bit altogether and including it verbatim without comment, for the reader to make a determination. For what it's worth, my conclusion is that the sentence is nothing more than a reporter's snarkiness and is unencyclopedic.
On the other point that's being hashed over in this section, I'd just note that sovereignty necessarily implies recognition. An unrecognized entity is ipso facto not sovereign. Compare Somaliland. All the evidence I see, from both sides, is that DoM is not generally recognized. -EDM 19:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no rule per se in terms of editing during arbitration, but again this should be common sense. What is happening with the constant editing and reverts IS the reason why we are in arbitration. One would honestly not have to think very hard to figure that it would be just common sense to have a truce until this is settled.
Regarding the WP quote about the CAR, here's a suggestion. This is a "what if" so I would ask for comments first before anyone does something. During the time arbitration is in process, what if we remove that quote and leave it out completely? Would that make it easier to call a truce in terms of everyone not editing for awhile?
If your not willing to accept the full terms of this idea, then don't. That means no editing at all until the arbitration case is finished. That might be as long as two weeks. It looks like we have two cases in front of us, but three of the arbitrators have voted whether or not to accept, so it's hard to say for sure. Does anyone object to this idea? Davidpdx 19:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If that's addressed to me, I think the paragraph needs more work than simply removing the quote. But as I've said, I'm not editing this page till the arbitration is over. If that was addressed to Johnski, never mind. -EDM 20:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Davidpdx, if you were talking to me, sure, remove the quote from the WP about state of denial for now, while arb goes on and I'll leave it alone, but will you friends agree to that? I've already told Tom, I'd hold off for now, but if you can show that good faith, go for it. Sincerely, Johnski 20:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was. Give me a few days. I'm trying to figure out if we should remove the quote or put the words back in as you stated. Davidpdx 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
As an addendum to the above conversation, the offer was to see if I could put together a group of people (at least five) willing to think about the offer, and was not a solid promise of anything. I have since contacted people and got a very lackluster response in terms of others willing to agree to this.
I firmly believe the arbitration case will get accepted. Last time I checked it was one vote short of going forward. I am still asking that no one edit this article (as well as the two others) until arbitration is finished. My hope is people will stick to that and not start messing with it.
As a side note, I moved some of the comments around and tried to offset them to make the conversation in this section readable to some point. It's getting really bad in terms of figuring out who said what to whom. Davidpdx 14:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Hello EDM, while I agree with your take on the WP article, I think you may have written the opposite of what you meant, that being that recognition implies sovereignty, not the other way around. A sovereign is sovereign whether or not recognized by outsiders.
An entity acting in a sovereign capacity invities recognition from its actions. The fact is that DOM has been verifiably recognized by a UN member state and makes claims of other recognition. I can't find where their various claims of recognition have been disputed by any credible source. I don't think the article needs to say that the DOM is a sovereign state. It could simply say that it is an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood and has recieved some recognition for that effort.
From the article you mentioned, "A team of observers from seven countries monitored the polls and found them generally free and fair, boosting Somaliland's bid for international recognition as a sovereign state." This doesn't mean that Somaliland needs international recognition to be a sovereign state. They're not bidding for sovereignty only for recognition of existing sovereignty.
Personally, I believe that the US OCC refering to DOM as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that licensed a bank (remember licensing of banks is reserved for states) is in fact calling it a sovereignty, just not recognized by the US government. If it said non-existent sovereignty, that would be a different story. Thank you for taking an interest. Sincerely, Johnski 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
No, really, I didn't get it backwards. I meant it just as I wrote it. An individual who asserts a sovereignty that nobody else recognizes is, to put it most charitably, a solipsist. Less kindly put, he's a cartoon Napoleon. As for bank licensing, that's hardly reserved for states. I can license a bank. If anyone wants to put their money in it, they'd better do some due diligence first. -EDM 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
We are not talking about an individual asserting something about himself, we are talking about Somaliland. A solipsist only thinks he or she exists. I could see your agrument if it was an individual claiming to be sovereign and no one recognizing that. In this case we are talking about Somaliland claiming that it exists without recognition. Napoleon was the head of a recognized state, France. The U.S. existed for two years before any state recognized it, and that was France, so does that mean that the U.S. wasn't a sovereign state for the first two years of its existence? Can you show me any example of a non-state that has licensed a bank? You could license a bank, but by what authority, and would the US OCC call you a "non-recognized sovereignty" if the bank you licensed tried to operate from an address in the U.S.? I rather doubt it, and I just searched the US OCC web site and found that they also recognized "Melchizedek" as the licensing authority for other banks they issued warnings about.
In the case of DOM, it isn't the only one claiming that it has recognition. The question is, does the recognition have to be universal? Not necessarily. The fact that it has been confirmed that DOM has been formally recognized by a UN member state, lends credibility to their recent claims of new dejure recognition from other states. Have you seen the letter from the Asian Pacific Parlimentarians Union that endorsed DOM for observer status which was puportedly signed by several Pafific island nations? Have you seen the recent treaties DOM purportedly entered into with Nigeria, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. Or the many other forms of defacto recognition they claim. Various news articles I've read state that DOM passports have been accepted in various places. That is a form of defacto recognition. Sincerely, Johnski 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing During Arbitration

Since arbitration is going forward, no one should be editing this article. Everyone involved should be wait for the outcome of the arbitration case before anything else is done. I would hope this is just merely common sense, but I guess I have to say it.

If either Dominion of Melchizedek, Solkope or Bokak Atoll are edited again, I will ask for a TRO and/or page protect against editing. Honestly, I shouldn't have to do this, but if it becomes necessary I will. Davidpdx 13:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just common sense, and I support it. At this point, no change can be evaluated on its merits. The article should not be edited (except for vandalism, spelling, etc.) until the abritration is complete. I'm reverting it, and I hope people leave it alone. Tom Harrison 19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. It looks like Johnski is NOT willing to abide by this request. If he persists, I'm going to goto a admin and have this page protected. Davidpdx 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Tom, to me, misquoting the WP is a form of vandalism, however, I'll follow your advice, and leave this article alone for now. Johnski 19:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)