Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pmanderson (talk | contribs) at 04:23, 25 March 2006 (→New opinion issued by SEC re DOM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Previous discussions:

Accurancy & Balancing question for El C

Suggested addition to the SEC statement:

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

Suggested addition to the OCC former employee's statement:

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

The current article has it this way,

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

The portion in question of the acutal article states:

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

So I suggest our article should state accurately:

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

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

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

Until this dispute is resolved

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

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

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

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

Page Protection

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

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

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

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

US OCC balancing act

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

The article currenly only states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refuting nonsense claims

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

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

Pending final arbcom ruling

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this Dam Dom story got wikipedia some press coverage

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

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

New opinion issued by SEC re DOM

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

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

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

Whatsupdoc 04:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no real difference between this and the existing text; a virtual nation that exists at a website is not a legal sovereignity - or Mediawiki would have become one by now. Septentrionalis 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominion_of_Melchizedek&oldid=45370619"