Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by {Johnski}
The following epitomizes the crux of the problem between myself vs. Davidpdx, Gene_Poole aka Centauri and Jdavidb. The following took place on November 15 while this arbitration case was developing:

Insistence on mis-quoting the Washington Post
Here I only attempted to correct a quote from the Washington Post so that it would be accurate. However, while Davidpdx showed some interest in this change, he cowered to Gene_Poole when Poole insisted to let it stand as "probably" instead of what it really said, i.e. "you get the feeling". Poole argued that is what the WP article meant, even if it said, "you get the feeling". Now Jdavidb in his evidence on this page can’t see why the quote should be accurate and claims the difference is "essentially negligible". As if Wikipedia standards shouldn’t insist on accuracy when quoting from a source such as the Washington Post. What standard is Wikipedia to set if the difference between "probably" and "you get the feeling" is essentially negligible?

So-called Evidence too extensive
Since Davidpdx and Jdavidb's so-called "evidence" is so extensive, (and Davidpdx has also placed some of his evidence here in my evidence section) I've placed my longer response at: for those arbitrators that may care to study it.

I deny every allegation
In essense I deny every allegation laid against me, and in my defence state that I have matured over the time that I have been editing at Wikipedia, and hope that factor will be taken into consideration. Also, I kindly request that the arbitrators view my editing, creating, and reverting to have taken place in good faith. And that it be considered that many of the claims laid against me, Davidpdx and his allies, they have done themselves.

Davidpdx has placed Evidence in my {Johnski} section here
Since I'm not permitted to remove it, I've saved below what Davidpdx placed in my evidence where he attempts to argue with me below:


 * First, please tell me how links I provided are "mis-characterized?" How can I be providing "false dates" when the Wikipedia server records the time and date stamp in terms of when the edit occurs, not me? The links were pulled directly off the history page of Dominion of Melchizedek article.


 * you wrote 5 to 7 Sept but looking at the first link [5] it is Sept 4th. As pointed out that could be a error on your part and I am not saying you did it on purpose.


 * Second, you have had a pattern of blaming one person in particular for what you deem "vigilante behavior." I will gladly provide the diffs to show where you claim for quite sometime that I was the only one giving you a hard time. Now, your claiming Gene Poole is the main culprit {ringleader, etc). So which is it? Make up your mind? The truth is, there are nine people who have constantly oppose the content of your edits, with good reason. We have stated those reasons as the same reason why we filed a request for arbitration. Stop claiming that only one person opposes your edits. There are many people that are on record who have reverted your edits over and over again.


 * Your behavior is vigilante, where I believe others may not go that far. Yes there are others that share your twisted view of me and my work, but Gene Poole, a bully, has more teeth in his bite, and he may have a few sock-puppets to boot. If you are innocent, why have you and Centauri (Gene's sock-puppet?) refused to disclose your IP addresses?


 * Third, as I have learned from looking up IP addresses, there are only three people that support the edits you are trying to make, not the 7 to 10 people you claim. I have obtained information from IP addresses which show where those individuals live. It is a lesser charge then the sockpuppet accusation, but nonetheless proves collaboration on your part to collude with others to make changes (including removing information) to cover up the fraud on the part of DOM. I have not yet provided the diffs to talk about the problems with the content, we will be doing that as more evidence is posted. The diffs I have posted show exactly when you and your co-conspirators {KAJ and SamuelSpade) edited based on the time stamp on the Wikipedia server.Davidpdx 11:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is only your opinion, not facts. I only have 1 IP address. I have no interest in removing any thing in the article that doesn't belong there, which means two sides of the story, not just the one you want to see. There is loads of stuff in my versions that include the negative parts. Let me see you disprove that. My only efforts have been to bring balance and improve an interesting article to make it more interesting and diverse for the viewing audience. You can see others besides myself and those you claim in concert with me, have recently expressed a desire to see more content. Sincerely, Johnski 05:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, I've asked you nicely not to put comments inbetween mine. I'll ask you nicely one more time to change that. I believe it's impolite to do so and I believe I told you that before on the DOM page.


 * Second, you have removed several creditable sources that are negative in terms of DOM and not ever given any reason why you have removed them other then your usual rhetoric about what you called "fair and balanced." I'm sorry your idea of fair and balanced is about that of Fox News. I will be glad to provide you proof you have removed sources that have been a part of the article for sometime and not showed any ryme or reason for it. Would you like to show me exactly where you stated why you have removed sources? I'd be interested to see such a post on your part.


 * Furthermore, I'd also be more then happy to provide proof of your constant reverts against the consensus of others. As well as showing IP providers in terms of user names associated with pro-Dom reverts. Notice in my rebuttal I never said you had more then one IP address (which you incorrectly stated above), but that you and two other people are working in conjunction to whitewash the DOM page. Davidpdx 06:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Davidpdx, you are the one that is not polite writing in the section that is exclusively for me to write in, and you noticed I didn't write in your section. I'm sorry that you feel it is impolite the way I try to communicate with you.  I have not always repeated my reasons each time I revert or edit, but briefly, I've removed stuff that is either a repeated link, or dublicated information, the same as in the other link, for example the scamdog link doesn't add anything new or different or is from a source that isn't credible.  What credentials does the scamdog web site have to make it worthy of Wikipedia, or what does it add that is new or different to make the article more informative?  However, it is you that should be proving stuff as you are the one that brought the arb case out of fear that I would do it first after I told you that would be my only solution if you didn't accept  mediation. Sincerely, Johnski 07:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am permitted (as I understand) to rebut what you say. In addition, I did ask you polite (but firm] manner to remove the comments. I could have said several other things. I will ask you again to remove the comments, otherwise I'll ask the arbitration committee to do it for you.


 * Second, In your initial rebuttal, you made several counter-claims that were false, which I will continue to set straight. This included a statement by you insinuating that the evidence I provide was "mis-characterized by false dating" as well as stating that I am the person causing all the problems. Yet it is you, SamuelSpade and KAJ that have exhibited behavior showing you thinkyour above the rules of Wikipedia.


 * Third, I have only started to post evidence. It is by far not all of the evidence, but about 1/3rd of what I will post. Mediation was not an option, therefore the next step was arbitration. I did file a case for mediation (I'd be happy to provide you with the link if you don't believe me) and was told it wasn't a good fit. If you look back at the arbitration filling, one of the mediators stated that I had indeed contacted them about this. It's just as simple as that. I also waited several days to see if things would calm down. The fact is, you, KAJ and SamuelSpade relented on reverting several pages, so much so, that they had to be protected. You can try to twist it anyway you want, but that's the truth. Davidpdx 09:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Davidpdx, you are not permitted to rebut what I say here in my area, which shows you do not read the rules. I am also not permitted to remove or move the comments already placed here. You don't have to ask the arbitration committee to do it for you because they will when they finally see it.


 * Second, My behavior hasn't shown anymore than yours that I think I'm above the rules of Wikipedia.


 * Third, Mediation would have been an option, if you pointed out that I requested it of you and therefore we both asked for it. It was Wikifacts and Gene Poole's little edit war that led to the protection of the DOM article. You can try to twist it anyway you want, but that's the truth. Sincerely, Johnski 06:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

27 Oct
User:Johnski creating an article on Wikipedia called Wikilante to criticize those he disagrees with. The article itself was tagged Speedy Deletion, then recreated and deleted and protected so that he could not recreate it. User:Sjakkalle stated in the edit summary of the page, (that the article was) "Recreated after speedy deletion, created by a disgruntled user.”

The following is at least part of the text which was left on my talk page by Johnski:

"A Wikilante is a rogue member of the Wikipedian community that takes matters into his/her own hands by blocking honest attempts to improve an article. The word Wikilante was inspired by the meaning of Vigilante. It was developed as a result of wikilante behavior on certain controversial articles published on Wikipedia. It is not to be confused with those dedicated Wikipedians that vigilantly revert vandalism, and attempt to block disruptive behavior." Davidpdx 04:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Organizational effort to POV push
We believe that the edits with regard to the pages mentioned are part of an organizational push by members of DOM. The IP addresses are located within the confines of California, Australia and New York. Here is a timeline which will show a planned effort on the part of those mentioned to alter DOM articles to push their agenda.

The reverting on the part of those named goes back even further then what I'm going to show. On the talk page, a few other editors posted comments about ongoing vandalism as far back as July and August of this year. Therefore, it's unclear exactly how long this has been going on.

5 to 7 Sept
User:Johnski under the IP address User:67.124.49.20 (note this was before he officially signed up for a user name) made the following edits, , , , , , ,

8 to 11 Sept
User:208.57.91.27 made the following edits, , , ,

12 Sept
User:Johnski under the IP address User:67.124.49.20 (note this was before he officially signed up for a user name) made the following edits, , , ,

21 to 25 Sept
User:Samspade also known as User:SamuelSpade, User:208.57.91.27 and User:Rriter made the following edits, , , , , , , , , ,

28 Sept to 3 Oct
User:Johnski made the following edits under both his name and IP User:67.124.49.20, , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 to 19 Oct
User:Johnski made the following edits, , , , ,

14 to 20 Oct
User:207.47.122.10 and User:KAJ (new user) made the following edits, , , , , , , ,

26 to 27 Oct
User:Wiki-Facts (new user) made the following edits, , , , , , , , , ,

(Note: I think this may be Wiki-Facts IP Address since he was making the same edits that happened under that user name and on the same day. The two IP addresses used that day to revert the article are: User:202.162.66.238 and User:202.162.64.50. He may have made the edits while he was logged out of Wikipedia and was unaware of it.)

,, , , (again under the IP address, but it is Wiki-Facts ID), , (again under the IP address, but it is Wiki-Facts ID),, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (also under IP address)

Note: After these two days, Wiki-Facts has never been heard from again.

26 to 27 Oct
User:Johnski made the following edits, ,

10 Nov
User:KAJ made the following edits, ,

13 to 16 Nov
User:Johnski made the following edits, , , ,

Davidpdx 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

6 September
User:67.124.49.20(again as I stated, this is User:Johnski},, , , , ,

12 September
User:67.124.49.20(again as I stated, this is User:Johnski}, , , ,

29 September
User:Johnski, , , , , ,

26 to 27 Oct
User:Wiki-Facts As stated above he edited the DOM article 31 times in one day and reverted the page 10 times in one day.

I won't repost the links, because it's going to be too long. You can see the same date in the section above though.

Davidpdx 07:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting without Consensus, Inability to show good faith and discuss before reverting
My experience with his underhanded tactics goes back to when I first had a discussion with Johnski regarding the page. Johnski constantly reverted the page, even when it was being discussed on the talk page. He will claim that I refused to ever work with him, which is not true. Simply put, he did exactly what he wanted instead of discussing it with others on the talk page. The first point where I started to talk to him about the DOM page was after I had been reverting his edits for a few weeks. He signed up for a user name and we began to discuss things on the talk pages. 

He reverted the article both before and after he posted this section on the talk page on September, 30th at 00:01, which was titled "Compromise Language." 

Yet the question I'm posing is: Did he show good faith? Here is an edit made on September 29, at 21:16, just less then three hours before he posted the "Compromise Language" section on the talk page. This was reverted by User:Centauri three hours later. .

On the talk page I posted the following note to Johnski:

"At this point, the page needs to be reverted to the previous version until either A) More people can be convinced that what you are saying is true or B) A compromise can be forged. If there neither can be reached, then the page needs to stay as is under Wikipedia rules. Davidpdx 9/30/05 4:16 (UTC)"

However, Johnski continued to persist and reverted the article the next day 9/30/05 at 13:13, putting in the edit summary, "Toned down and pointed to 1950s as date in respected "Context magazine article"". 

Johnski then states in an edit summary of one of his reverts, "please detail which parts you consider misleading, nonesense and vandalism in a detailed report on the talk page." This honestly seems backwards to me. He is essentially claiming that his version has consensus and others need to consult him before reverting.

Between 9/30/05 and 10/3/05, Johnski reverted the page a total of six times. On 10/3/05 I posted yet another message on the talk page asking him to stop reverting the article:

"Please stop reverting this article until there is a consensus or compromise langauge that has been agreed to. The version posted by 03:54, 3 October 2005 El C is the version that should remain until further notice. Doing otherwise in insistance of compromise that does not exsist severely damages your creditablity. It also could hamper any possiblity of others to work with you to come to a meaningful agreement. Davidpdx 10/3/05 9:04 (UTC)

At that point there were 11 days in which the article was not reverted. Someone edited the article, the person did not have an username. The article should have been reverted back to the last clean version. Instead, Johnski posted his "alternative version", which was reverted by me the next day.

By then I had given up, as he was not willing to show good faith in the discussion on the page and instead kept revering. This is an exchange which took place on the talk page in which he insists either it's his way or an edit war.

Breach of Good Faith

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

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


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


 * I stand by my decision to hault a compromise discussion. The article that was reverted after the vandalism was the "alternative article" that you were proposing in the talk page, which had no consensus. This in itself shows a lack of good faith. Davidpdx 07:48, 15 October 2005 (U
 * So you'd rather see a reversion war than deal with a compromise? Cordially,Johnski 08:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Johnski also claims in the same conversation that there are 7 people which support his version. "I counted at least 7 different IP addresses and User names that showed tendency towards the versions that I worked on," Johnski said. The truth is, many of those IP addresses are from the same area or the reverts happened about the same time as a user name with the same or an IP that was very close to the same range. As I have shown in the other section, there are only 3 people which are pushing the same version as Johnksi, not 7 as he contends.


 * Johnski, in his rebuttle, has again tried to perpetrate the lie that I was not willing to work with him. As I have shown, even when I was talking to him, he reverted the article. He refuses to follow the rules, even when I was discussing it on the talk page. I have asked him time and time again, to explain why no one will work with him. It is because he has burnt bridges with other editors, including myself due to the fact he reverted the article even while a compromise was being attempted. Certainly, most would agree, if someone you work with burns you, you wouldn't want to work with them again. This is exactly why no one will listen to him anymore.


 * The other factor is Johnski uses circular arguments over and over again on the talk page, often not providing sources that prove his statements about DOM. Many editors have gotten sick of reading his rants on the talk page and reverting his pro-DOM versions. Davidpdx 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Negative Information
Johnski has a pattern of removing links that he deems are negative toward DOM. One such link is to Scamdog, which he claims is repetitive and has no useful information. Yet Scamdog does provide useful background information regarding some of the scams that are connected with the DOM. Here are diffs showing first the version that has consensus and then his whitewashed version.

But this is not the only site Johnski has altered, another one is called Quatloos! which is a non-profit financial & tax fraud education website. While he left the quote in with the appliciable reference, he removed the name of the website from the article as well as link from the external links section of the article. Davidpdx 21:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Selective Use of Sources
In his version, Johnski also references an alert by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is part of the US government, right after the Quatloos quote. He has framed the quote as follows:

"However, the only offical reference to Melchizedek by the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce."

He tries to make this quote look like a form of diplomatic recognition by the US Government. While the document itself is referenced after the quote, his version fails to mention that the source is in fact a alert sent to banks regarding fradulent banks licensed by DOM. The full source document states:

"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." 

After looking at the full quote, one can see this has nothing to do with recognition as Johnski is trying to make the quote appear. The US government does not recognize DOM, however over and over again in both his reverts and on the talk pages, Johnski tries to push the idea that this is a form of recognition. If anything, the reference proves DOM's questionable nature because of its relationship with banks that commit fradulent activites.

Under the heading of 10 November 2005 rewrite, Johnski again references a document which calls into question DOM's role in banks who are committing fradulent acts. However, the primary purpose of using this piece of information has nothing to do with the true content of the document, which is SEC Commission Release announcing a settlement in the case against World Financial & Investment Co., Inc. and Victor M. Wilson. The part of this release Johnski pushes is references is the fact that the SEC used, "The Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments." Again, trying to imply that the US is giving recognition to DOM as well as leaving out the fact that the documents he is referencing have to do with fraudlent banks licensed by the organization he's trying to push. Davidpdx 15:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Johnski Email/IP
In the course of email exchanges I was able to verify Johnski's email address and IP address as well as his IP provider. The following is taken from an email sent to me:

Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:54:13 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.4.54.108] Return-Path:  Authentication-Results: mta203.mail.re2.yahoo.com from=hotmail.com; domainkeys=neutral Received: from 64.4.54.108 (EHLO hotmail.com) (64.4.54.108) by mta203.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:54:13 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:38:36 -0700 Message-ID:  Received: from 67.124.49.20 by by20fd.bay20.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:38:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [67.124.49.20] X-Originating-Email: [johnskiwiki@hotmail.com] X-Sender: johnskiwiki@hotmail.com From: "John Ski"  Subject: Melchizedek controvery Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 02:38:35 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2005 09:38:36.0053 (UTC) FILETIME=[37120C50:01C5D16C]

IP and Provider Information:

OrgName:   SBC Internet Services OrgID:     SIS-80 Address:   2701 W 15th St PMB 236 City:      Plano StateProv: TX PostalCode: 75075 Country:   US

NetRange:  67.112.0.0 - 67.127.255.255 CIDR:      67.112.0.0/12 NetName:   SBCIS-SIS80 NetHandle: NET-67-112-0-0-1 Parent:    NET-67-0-0-0-0 NetType:   Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.PBI.NET NameServer: NS2.PBI.NET Davidpdx 05:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also a rather large discrepency in Johnski's information. On his blog, he claims he is a lawyer in New York. While his IP address has him located in (or near) Santa Rosa/San Jose area in California. You can enter his IP address which will bring up the same information I saw. I firmly believe Johnski is hiding something in terms of his location and knowledge of others who are editing the articles on Wikipedia. Davidpdx 14:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting without Consensus
Those who support DOM have continually reverted without consensus. This goes back as far as August (possibly longer, but I'll focus on primarly September-November). Again, I will thwart the claim that Johnski has made that 7 people support his edits by referring to the section titled, Organizational Effort to POV Push. This is important as Johnski and the two others who supported the pro-DOM version were in the minority.

These are some examples of how pro-DOM editors have made it appear that their versions have consensus:

September 5, 2005 User:63.164.145.85 {Reverting to obviously more accurate edition}

September 8, 2005 User:208.57.91.27 (This one shows more balance and more interesting reality based reading)

September 12, 2005 User:67.124.49.20 Please stop the vandalism of this article)

September 21, 2005 User:208.57.91.27 (After reading the discussion page and the links this is what seems appropriate. Please give me your comments for my reaction before reverting.)

September 22, 2005 ] User:Rriter(I'm not a puppet, so please discuss before reverting)

September 23, 2005 User:208.57.91.27 (There is logic to this version and more supporting it now.)

September 27, 2005 User:71.130.204.74 (I see that around 6 others have voted for this version)

September 30, 2005 User:Johnski (please detail which parts you consider misleading, nonesense and vandalism in a detailed report on the talk page)

October 3, 2005 User:67.124.49.20 (less POV here)

October 16, 2005 User:Johnski (boldly nuetralizing bias - see talk page)

October 19, 2005 User:Johnski (Davidpdx, please stop reverting the baised version, or come up a someting in between to show an effort towards it. I put back the identifcation as a microation if that helps.)

October 21, 2005 User:SamuelSpade (Reality check good but which parts of which version? Davidpdx keeps reverting without explanation whereas myself and others have given arguements and references)

Just a note: If you look at the talk pages, SamuelSpade makes very few comments despite what he insists in the edit summary).

October 27, 2005 User:Wiki-Facts (Vandal - *** DO NOT REVERT LEST YOU BE BANNED PERMANENTLY FROM WIKIPEDIA ***)

November 10, 2005 User:KAJ (Mr. Davidpdx: Please show some effort in looking at my work, to see if there is anything you agree with. Do you know how to compare articles to see the changes? Do some work on this or quit.)

November 13, 2005 User:Johnski (refer to talk page and before reverting see if you can't find something you can keep in your next revision)

Claim of Ecclesastical State
Yet another claim by Johnski and others who push a pro-DOM agenda is that DOM is a recognized Ecclesastical State. Before it was merged into Ecclesastical Government, Ecclesastical state was often reverted by Johnski and others who posted the claim that DOM was a recognized government. The only legitimate recognition, which is questionable at best, is given by the Central African Republic. The CAR has been noteworthing for having its own problems with fraud and in fact the government which gave the recognition to DOM has since fallen out of power.

Misrepresenting the rules of Wikipedia
This has been an ongoing problem with Johnski, KAJ, SamuelSpade and Wiki-Facts. Johnski has continually made blanket statements about the rules of Wikipedia, and is willing to change them at his leisure to push his agenda.

Claim regarding use of blogs

Johnski claimed using blogs was

Several people pointed out that using a blog was not appropriate, especially given the fact that the subject at hand was quite a controverial one. The blog was first added on September 16, 2005, which was reverted by myself the next day. Johnski reverted it again on September 18, 2005 which was reverted by Shocktm.

Johnski proceeded to posted this on the talk page:

David,

I don't see discussion on this page for anything, so how did others add their edits to this page without discussion? Please explain. (Unsigned by Johnski)


 * I don't know what you're talking about! Nobody is REQUIRED to discuss anything on this page - they are free to edit the main article. If an edit is controversial, however, it will be discussed on this page. Otherwise, not. David Cannon 02:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was advised that I couldn't add a link to the article without first getting consensus on the discussion page so I looked here and wandered if that is true why no one else had to discuss the matter first before they post new editions, links. Since the link has been reverted indicating, "Revert. A Blog is not a good source for information on a islands history"

I found the blog to be the best I could find on the subject, linked not of the islands history, but of the secessionists movements there with court cases cited. Does anyone have a better link or should we revert back to the blog link? Johnski 05:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Johnski recieved a few replies, one of which pointed out (correctly might I add) that if the subject is controversial, it should be discussed on the talk page. He also failed to add that the blog he referenced was his own!!! This glaring omission of information in terms of adding it and insisting it be used is quite a conflict of interest. Especially since Johnski lectures other editors about non-bias versions of articles.

I posted a rather long response to why I felt using the blog was not appropriate. On October 15, 2005 he left the following message that was extremly snotty:

David, Please read the rules again as blogs can be used in some cases. In this case, I feel that a New York lawyer may meet the requirements. See: http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/015237.html Also, please note that everyone else here agreed with using the blog but you, putting you in the minority. Cordially,Johnski 07:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

While two editors said they had no problem with the use, they were also not made aware of the conflict of interest. Johnski also will not point out that several other users who regularly watch the pages did have a problem with the use of the blog. I posted the rules regarding the use of blogs and Johnski back off of using it any further.

Arbitration/Mediation

When Johnski was upset that his version was getting reverted by myself and others, he asked me if I wanted to goto Mediation. I stated that I was not willing to and had nothing to work out with him. This was due in part to the fact he constantely reverted the page, even when it was being discussed. In my opinion, he had been dishonest and I felt I could not trust anything he said.

Johnski promptly messaged me back and threatened me with arbitration and made the following to claims:

1) If I didn't accept Mediation it would work against me.

2) In Arbitration, no witnesses are allowed.

Dear David, Mediation is a better means of resolving this matter than artibtation. I'd prefer to work this out with you man to man, but since you are unwilling to try, the first approach according to what has been suggested to me by other Wikipedians, is mediation, but if you refuse to participate it is impossible for a mediator to help us. If we end up in arbitration, I think your unwillingness to accept mediation will work against you. There are no witnesses needed because the record speaks for itself. Have you read how Mediation works here? I suggest you read that before making your final decision for refusal to mediate our differences. Sincerely,Johnski 05:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Solkope Article

This article has some deep history in terms of editing. At one point, User:Isotope tried to forge a compromise with editors to get consensus for a version of an article with the DOM content. She and I came up with some wording and she (not I) posted it. KAJ reverted the article removing claims that dealt with the fraud by banks licensed by DOM. This went back and forth and the paragraph was eventually removed.

Johnski claims because a administrator edited an article, that she gave an endorsement to the pro-DOM statements.

Hello Samboy, Are you aware that an admin of Wikipedia see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grutness kept the DOM content on Sept 2005 when he edited the article? Sincerely, Johnski 07:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I pointed out to him that she indeed edited the article, but made only a small change (I believe it was to fix a spelling error). He kept insisting that because Grutness left the DOM reference in, that it had consensus. I also told him he was misrepresenting what had occured and that the version he pushed lacked consensus. Davidpdx 16:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttle to KAJ
It is interesting that KAJ states the only people that are not bias are those who are constantly reverting the article. Yet it is he, Johnski, SamuelSpade and Wiki-Facts that fail to follow the rules

None of the people he defends (including himself) read nor care about the rules of Wikipedia. They are here for one reason and that is to push a Pro-DOM agenda.

I also find it interesting that KAJ brings up the fact that a new user, User:Immigrationissues (History) showed up recently. KAJ copied the talk page on to the evidence page to try to show that Gene Poole was somehow rude. KAJ's retoric about Gene Poole is exactly the same in terms of Johnksi's, which makes me really wonder if they are one person.

I also find it ironic that User:Immigrationissues shows up and his only edits on Wikipedia have to do with, yes you guessed it DOM. Honestly I have to wonder if they (Johnski, SamuelSpade and KAJ) think people are so completely stupid that we can't figure out what is going on.

What KAJ doesn't point out (and neither will Johnski) is that I attempted to work with Johnski and he reverted the page even as I tried to work with him in good faith. Johnski, SamuelSpade, and KAJ have repeatedly showed bad faith, yet they complain that no one will work with them. I wonder why?

In terms of the Solkope article, there was agreement among editors and then Johnski reverted the article several days later I reverted it back to the version that had consensus and KAJ and Johnski persisted. In the end, I removed the portion of the article because Johnski and KAJ would not follow the rules and stick with the version that had consensus. They instead would rather abuse the process.

KAJ claims I "misunderstand" the rules, which is only one of a number of vague accusations he makes in his statement. This is truly the pot calling the kettle black. Yet another accusation he makes without merit is the statement by Isotope "Davidpdx was clearly “unwilling to compromise in any way, and Isotope23 referred to working with Davidpdx as “Banging your head on a wall.” Yet again it was Johnski, KAJ and SamuelSpade that reverted the agreed upon version. He also fails to even reference the conversation that took place.

User:Wiki-Facts (History) and Rriter (History) are clearly sockpuppets. Wiki-Fact was active for only a few days and then disappeared. I believe he was a sockpuppet of either SamuelSpade or KAJ. The same thing is true for Rriter, he made a few edits on two diffrent days and then disappeared. Anyone with half a brain has to wonder why users suddenly come in out of the blue, edit one subject and then disappear out of thin air. Of course KAJ and Johnski will try to con you into believing these are legitimate users, which is not the case. Davidpdx 14:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal "I Am Not Johnski"
There are too many strong ties between the two people to believe this person who posted the rebuttal. First of all, the obvious, both people have the name Johnski. Second, both claim to be Jewish and show an interested in DOM related articles. Is this a coincidence? Maybe, but I personal am not buying it. They can balk all they want at the things I point out, but it does raise some suspensions in terms of the ties between these two people. Davidpdx 07:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"This is from Jonathan Edelstein. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia etiquette so I'm not sure if I should reply here or someplace else. If I'm posting this in the wrong place, I apologize."

"What 'strong ties' are you talking about? First of all, my name is Jonathan, and there's no 'ski' in my first, last or middle names. Second, there are about 14 million Jews in the world, so the fact that 'Johnski' may also be Jewish doesn't narrow it down.  Third, I can document my professional interest in Pacific law, and particularly Fiji, at least as far back as March 2002 when my article on the May 2000 coup was published in the Sydney Law Review."

"Given my professional connection to Fiji, it isn't surprising that I'd write about the Rotuma-Melchizedek affair. That's the only article on my blog that mentions DOM, and there are more than 100 other articles on various Pacific topics that have nothing to do with DOM."

"Also, you've accused 'Johnski' of making pro-DOM edits, while it's pretty clear from my blog post that I consider DOM a colossal fraud. Why would I write an anti-DOM article on my site and then make pro-DOM changes on Wikipedia under another name? That doesn't make sense."

"I'm willing to provide any other proof you might want to show that I'm not Johnski, although proving a negative is always problematic. For what it's worth, I agree that my blog post is an inappropriate source for Wikipedia, although the primary sources cited in the post are appropriate. I'd appreciate it if you and Johnski carried on your argument and left me out of it.  Jonathan Edelstein"

Conclusion
I have concluded posting evidence in this case. It is my sincere hope that the arbitration committee will look at the evidence and make a finding in terms of the disruptive behavior exhibited by the defendants in this case.

We are asking for the following outcome: That Johnski and KAJ be banned from Wikipedia for a period of 6 months and that they are not permitted to edit in anyway articles relating to DOM for a year. In addition, we ask that a provision be added if they are caught violating this that they can be banned for up to 2 weeks from Wikipedia. We also ask that SamuelSpade (aka SamSpade) be restricted from editing DOM related articles for a period of one year and that the same violation clause be set for him as well.

It is important I think, to keep Wikipedia from becoming an enviroment where people can post things that are questionable in nature. Once Wikipedia lets that happen, it will go from a creditable source to that of a blog. In this case, the people who have been brought before this arbitration committee have continually violated Wikipedia rules and have been seldom held responsible for their actions. It is time that this happen. Davidpdx 10:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence Removed by Johnski
On December 11th, evidence was removed from the Evidence page for this case. I am asking one of the arbitration committee to reinstate the evidence on this page. If Johnski wants to put the evidence on his user page as well, that's fine. However, evidence should not have been removed from this page. Here is a diff showing removal of evidence. This act goes further to show Johnski will break the rules of Wikipedia at will. Davidpdx 10:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting during Arbitration
Those that have been brought to arbitration have again started to revert Dominion of Melchizedek even before the outcome has been decided. It's obvious that they do not take the arbitration hearing seriously.

User:208.57.91.27 reverted on 12/19 at 16:07 GST and again at 16:29 GST.

User:67.125.151.194 reverted once on 12/19 at 16:06 GST. It is also noteworthy that this IP address is very close to the known IP of User:Johnski who's IP address is 67.124.49.20. 

I am therefore asking for an injunction against all the editors that are named in the complaint from reverting all of the articles (DOM, Bokak Atoll, ect) until such time as the arbitration case has been concluded. Davidpdx 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Organizational effort to POV push
Because I also see a need for balance in the Dominion of Melchizedek article (DOM) Davidpdx automatically assumes the worst, without following Wiki guidelines to assume good faith.

Regarding so-called Wiki-facts, Davidpdx doesn’t point out that Gene Poole was almost as ferocious in his editing/reverting the night the article was protected by SlimVirgin. Davidpdx fails to mention that on  October 27, 2005 Gene Poole changed or reverted the DOM article approx 14 times and showed no interest in valid changes of Wiki-facts but instead insisted on adding what could easily be considered inflammatory opinions, for example, that DOM was “invented“ and elsewhere, “concocted“.

“Reverting without Consensus, Inability to show good faith and discuss before reverting“
Davidpdx calls good faith editing,, vandalism. After Dejvid, pointed out to Davidpdx that he shouldn’t call good faith efforts vandalism, Davidpdx continued his vexing behavior. Davidpdx reverts wtihout consensus, and fails to discuss before reverting.

Reverting without Consensus
Davidpdx brings the following to our attention:

November 10, 2005 User:KAJ (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.)

However, Davidpdx shows no interest in trying to solve the problems. He can show no real effort towards compromise, or consensus. A real effort would have shown some give and take, not just talking, without any compromise.

Claim of Ecclesastical State
Davidpdx informs us: “Yet another claim by Johnski and others who push a pro-DOM agenda is that DOM is a recognized Ecclesastical State. Before it was merged into Ecclesiastical Government, Ecclesiastical state was often reverted by Johnski and others who posted the claim that DOM was a recognized government. The only legitimate recognition, which is questionable at best, is given by the Central African Republic. The CAR has been noteworthing for having its own problems with fraud and in fact the government which gave the recognition to DOM has since fallen out of power.”

On November 16, EDM pointed out to Davidpdx that it doesn’t matter if governments have a change of power since the recognition of China wasn‘t automatically cancelled after Nixon disgracefully left office. This shows that Davidpdx has no interest in what others say, even ones that he doesn‘t feel are a part of an organizational push. The fact is that the letter of “official and formal” diplomatic recognition from CAR as an “ecclesiastical sovereignty” should be enough to classify DOM as such, instead of a “Mcironation” but what Davidpdx doesn’t point out is that no one has insisted on that point for quite a while. Instead. compromise language, was used to the effect, “an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood.” But nothing is acceptable to Davidpdx on the DOM article that comes from me or others he imagines are associated with me.

Solkope Article
Davidpdx forgot to mention in his evidence that after Davidpdx, Solkope23 and I worked hard for consensus on the Solkope article, (and I left the final version to Isotopes23’s best judgment), Isotope23 commented to Johnski - “I understand what you are saying and let me make it clear that what I am basically doing here is washing my hands of the affair. If you are anyone else reverts to the wording they support, or adds in DOM references, I will not interfere. All I ask is that anyone editing leave the first two paragraphs alone (unless of course you have additional information about geographical and or Rotuman historical references). At least one person in this debate has shown that they are unwilling to compromise in any way, so it's pretty much impossible to reach a consensus. In the context of wikipedia, I have no way of forcing anyone to be reasonable. I basically got into this to try and broker some sort of middle ground, but this effort has been unsuccessful (and there is no indication that any effort to that effect would ever be successful). I've seen at least a couple of other wikipedia users who tried to get involved in the DoM partisan argument get totally burned out on wikipedia, so I'm walking away before I get to that point. Banging your head on a wall is no fun. Best of luck to all of you (on both sides) in your future edits.--Isotope23 13:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Davidpdx was clearly “unwilling to compromise in any way, and Isotope23 referred to working with Davidpdx as “Banging your head on a wall.” Why would Davidpdx put us through this process if he was unwilling to compromise in any way?

Davidpdx did however propose his version as this : “Here is my suggestion in terms of the last paragraph of the Soklope article: The Dominion of Melchizedek, a micronation known for being directly linked to large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world, claims to have a lease granting them use of the Solkope Island for 99 years. The lease was obtained from Hiagi Apao, who claims to be the sole soverign owner of the island. Although at times there has been a movement advocating sucession away from Fiji, the island is still recognized as territory of Fiji.”

Isotope23 agreed that the Solkope article wasn’t the place to mentioned the fraudulent activities of banks licensed by DOM.

However, as recently as November 15, when attempting to use Davidpdx’s version, he reverted to a version that doesn’t include his suggested text on the pretext that his arbitration case would prohibit it. This is the version that he didn‘t want to be shown: “The Dominion of Melchizedek, a micronation known for the banks it licensed, being directly linked to large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world, claims to have a lease granting them use of the Solkope Island for 99 years. The lease was obtained from Hiagi Apao, who claims to be the sole sovereign owner of the island. Although at times there has been a movement advocating secession away from Fiji, the island is still recognized as territory of Fiji.”

The only addition to his text was "the banks it licensed" to make the opening statement more accurate.

Davidpdx also forgets to mentioned that he tried to get the entire Solkope article deleted, but failed, and it was kept with content about DOM. 

What Davidpdx also doesn’t want to point out is that recently there are more than those that don’t want a biased version besides:
 * User:Johnski,
 * User:KAJ
 * User:SamuelSpade
 * User:Wiki-Facts
 * Rriter
 * User:202.162.66.158
 * User:12.202.45.74
 * User:67.124.49.20
 * User:63.164.145.198
 * User:71.130.204.74
 * User:66.245.247.37
 * User:208.57.91.27
 * User:68.123.207.17

The more recent ones are: EDMand FT2 11:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)and Immigrationissues

Drawn in by the arbitration case, FT2 wrote, to Davidpdx: “That is, in Wikipedia 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)

Centauri a suspected sock-puppet of Gene Poole responded: “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)

How could Centauri possibly know what view “almost everyone in the world who is aware of Melchizedek” has on this subject. It is this type of comment that makes it impossible to work with Davidpdx’s small group. Davidpdx tried to complete “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)

Then FT2 responds, “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)

Then Gene Poole goes way off the deep end, “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)

Poole goes on to write, “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.”

Poole is obviously making stuff up here.

Davidpdx, follows up with, “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 Wikipedia. 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)

Here Davidpdx shows that he doesn't understand Wiki policy. Wikipedia only needs to quote credible sources accurately, and doesn't have to prove what is true.

Nevertheless, Davidpdx can’t substantiate his claims.

EDM stated recently: “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….. EDM 19:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

EDM had a much different opinion about this than Centauri, Poole or Davidpdx:

"My approach would be not to mention the Washington Post article at all in this section, as it is both a secondary source at best and for this purpose an opinionated one. I would therefore delete the entire first paragraph, and most of the second, in the "Recognition" section and instead say something like DoM asserts that it has bilateral diplomatic recognition with ..., listing the Central African Republic and the two or three other African countries mentioned on its website, with links to the two-page CAR document that I recall seeing somewhere here and to the "treaties of peace and recognition" that are reproduced here. Readers of the article can look at those treaties and form their own conclusion as to whether they establish diplomatic recognition. -EDM 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It may or may not also bear mentioning that President Kolingba, who signed the letter on behalf of the Central African Republic (or on whose behalf it was signed) was voted out of office shortly thereafter and the new government later relieved him of his military rank and charged several of his ministers with "various crimes." See Wikipedia's description of the sequence of events. If I were writing the article, I probably wouldn't include that, since similar things happen all the time elsewhere and that doesn't necessarily affect the validity of diplomatic recognitions conferred by the discredited regime. (I'm thinking particularly of Nixon and China.) -EDM 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC):

copied by: KAJ 02:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Then we have the newest Immigrationissues expressing his opinion:

“I hope I am not infringing on any Wikipedia rules by writing here, however, should this be the case I sincerely apologize and ask that you accept this only in the light of my being new in Wikipedia. The article about Micronations is very interesting to me and I have researched the contents meticulously, however, I would like to just mention very important (in my opinion) fact, namely that the rhetoric/arguments serve very little purpose when measured against a casual users sincere and urgent search for verifiable information and FACTS. I do realize that everyone has an opinion and should strive to make his/her opinion the basis of their actions here and in general life. I urge the editor(s) of this specific entry to reach a consensus so as to allow that a casual user, such as myself, has a untainted and fair representation of FACTS to read in Wikipedia. I think that is what this site is about..Then again, it is also only my opinion. Immigrationissues2002 20:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. There's no problem with continuing the discussion on this page. The facts concerning "Melchizedek" are very well known - basically, it's a "shell country" thinly veiled in a cloak of religious respectability, that is used by a group of criminals to commit fraud. The controversy here surrounds a group of 3 editors and their sockpuppets - who are probably members of that criminal gang - who have been trying to re-write the article by removing all the bad references and replacing them with positive ones. They are currently being dealt with via arbitration. --Centauri 01:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Immigration, I have read both your note here and on the help page regarding DOM. As one of the people that responded to your inquiry stated, you can not apply for political asyulum, because it is indeed not a country.


 * Yes, your correct there has been a long feud about this article. This has gotten to the point that it has been taken to arbitration, a formal process to show abuse by certain people. While I appreciate your comments, at this point it really is a wait and see deal. Davidpdx 01:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Centauri. Thanks for the reply. Who are these criminals, what crimes are they doing and what is a sockpuppet ? Sorry for the many questions but if they are criminals, shouldn´t that be dealt with by the relevant authorities. I have spent the past few days specifically investigating the dominion, their website and officers and to be quite frank, I have found absolutely NOTHING to indicate that any official of the dominion has ever been convicted or even tried for any criminal activity related to the dominion. I have read that some individuals were convicted before, during and after the formation of the dominion, but not anyone officially acting on their behalf. I am trying to keep an open mind on the issue, but to me it sounds quite biassed to say the things that you have above. In my opinion you are making it sound as though the officials of the dominion are responsable for the actions of the owners of the banks and other businesses that have registered with them and have commited crimes...that would be like saying that President Bush is responsable for Enron...hardly a valid statement. Anyway, you probably have a reason for saying what you did, I would like to hear it, on here or to my private e-mail address.

Hi Davipdx. Thanks for your reply. I shall certainly look in here from time to time to see the outcome of this issue.

Immigrationissues 05:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I thank Immigrationissues for his enlightening comment. I am sure it will help the editors in any future decisions we need to make. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Immigrationissues is obviously yet another Johnski sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet, who has appeared out of nowhere to immediately begin posting insidious nonsense on this subject. --Gene_poole 22:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * GP, I agree you seriously have to wonder what is going on. Right now, I'm just ignoring it trying to focus on the arbitration which is more important at this point. Davidpdx 08:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the conclusion of the DOM Talk page as of December 5, 2005. I hope it may be helpful for the Arbitrators to understand the need to find a solution to this case.

Questions for Davidpdx's Rebuttle to KAJ
It is Davidpdx that has constantly reverted the article.

I have read the wiki policy and follow the rules.

I'm not claiming that no one will work with me. For example, Isotope23 worked with me, and when I started the Jewish Science article under my IP address I had no problem with others.

In terms of the Solkope article Davidpdx claims that he reverted to a version that has consensus. That article had consensus with the DOM content before and after Davidpdx tried to have the article deleted. So Davidpdx's reason for reverting articles is to punish those that don't follow his concept of the rules.

Here Davidpdx admits he doesn't understand the rules, "This is truly the pot calling the kettle black." And falsely claims that I "reverted the agreed upon version."

The heading and statement "I am not Johnski" below was not written by me, but by 66.9.135.114 and relates to the Rotuma Scam blog in question.

I am not Johnski
I am the owner of the Head Heeb blog and the author of one of the articles that is the subject of this controversy. For the record, I am not "Johnski." I learned about this page when someone left a comment on my blog today, and I had never previously heard of Johnski or this argument. I write only under my true name, Jonathan Edelstein, and have never written anonymously or pseudonymously.

I suggest that, instead of using my blog post as a source, you use the court cases and other sources that I cite.

Evidence presented by Jdavidb

 * Johnski's first edit identifies himself as :  Some diffs in this presentation will be to edits performed from this IP address.

Johnski's goals

 * Publicize DOM with references on as many articles as possible.
 * WP:SPAM states "Sometimes, people come to Wikipedia with the intention of spamming -- creating articles which are mere advertisements or self-promotion, or spewing external links to a Web site over many articles. And sometimes, people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia."  Johnski's goals have not been to build a good encyclopedia but to get as much positive exposure for DOM as possible.  Johnski's edits show that he willing to have DOM publicized under any pretenses: the exact facts he attempts to include as well as his stated reasons for his edits change over time because he wants to try any reason that will work to get his material accepted.
 * Legitimize DOM by removing or toning down material detrimental to the POV that DOM is legitimate. (Here Johnski reveals that he is "trying to tone it down.")
 * WP:NPOV states "Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly." It appears that the majority view about the Dominion of Melchizedek is that it exists primarily for the purpose of fraud.  Johnski's attempts to "tone this down" have resulted in the deliberate misuse and obfuscation of quotes to misrepresent opinions as being more favorable to DOM.

Revert warring on Dominion of Melchizedek
WP:EW states "Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule." The WP:3RR policy provides standards for discerning when revert warring has gone over the line: "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. ... If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." However, the 3RR policy "does not imply that reverting three times or less is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." It states that "Chronic offenders may be subject to rulings by the Arbitration Committee. This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside the 24-hour time period." (emphasis added) Johnski has engaged in revert warring and gaming of the three revert rule, often performing fourth reverts just outside of the 24-hour time period.

It is stated that "Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups." Groups are specifically exempted from the policy because of situations like this, where a number of Wikipedians have reverted Johnski to send the message that his changes go against consensus. Sockpuppets are not allowed in order to circumvent the policy to prevent situations where a user attempts to generate the appearance of consensus or support for his changes through impersonating non-existent users. In addition, WP:SOCK states "These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion. These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community. The reason behind this is, for instance, that an article about an online community should not be kept merely because all members of that community show up to vote for it. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." In this case, many brand-new, single-purpose account holders have appeared and attempted to follow Johnski's goals of "toning down" the articles about DOM to favor the minority view that DOM is legitimate. Johnski has claimed that these are distinct individuals rather than sockpuppets, and similar assertions have been made from the other accounts. According to this policy, however, these accounts are not legitimate members of the Wikipedia community, have no voice for forming consensus, and may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Version 1
In this version, DOM is described as an "Ecclesiastical government." Instead of being created in 1986, it was "discovered by Evan David Pedley and Ben David Pedley"
 * 2005-09-28 06:30:47
 * 2005-09-28 07:09:38
 * 2005-09-29 02:27:25
 * 2005-09-29 02:46:17
 * 2005-09-29 02:55:12 (fourth revert in a 24-hour time period!)

POV pushing
Johnski removes wording that properly contextualizes a POV in this attempt to obfuscate wording to imply legitimacy for the alleged recognition by CAR:
 * 2005-09-29 06:27:17

Version 2
Now DOM is an "entity." Also, rather than operating fraudulent banks, DOM just happens to "have a history of licensing banks that turned out to be fraudulent." He's given up claiming that it was a discovery; now he's working on implicitly asserting that there was an ancient history phase and a modern history phase. As well he wants to assert that the modern history phase goes back to the 1950's rather than the creation date of 1986.
 * 2005-09-29 07:11:11
 * 2005-09-29 23:08:16 (Note attempt to use the damning quote, ""The Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments," to imply that DOM is a sovereign entity, when the intent of the quote is nothing of the sort.  Standard modus operandi for Johnski.  Note also removal of quoted material from Quatloos: "Claims that the DoM has received recognition from any major government are purely lies" as well as links to that site.)
 * 2005-09-29 23:27:02
 * 2005-10-14 05:03:42 (qualification: this is in response to baiting vandalism.  He characterizes this as "reverting from vadalism to alternate version."  In other words, a vandal struck so he took the opportunity to slip his version in again.  Here is a diff between the last previous version from a registered user and this version by Johnski, clarifying that he has indeed made the same wholesale changes to the article: )
 * 2005-10-15 21:01:44 (Now he tries to imply that since the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that it is a sovereignty as opposed to unrecognized.  While each prior revert in this section has added additional material, later reverts to version 2 are basically the same as this one.)
 * 2005-10-17 07:38:47
 * 2005-10-17 08:07:42
 * 2005-10-17 21:30:29

Version 3
Finally conceded DOM is a micronation
 * 2005-10-19 00:21:34

Trying to assert POV problems
Now he's trying to insert disclaimers on the article indicating it may be biased because it includes material detrimental to the DOM POV. The first diff in the section is not the same as the other three. However, given that the intent is the same this constitutes a violation of the three revert rule, or at least an abuse of its intent.
 * 2005-10-26 07:47:15
 * 2005-10-26 23:03:23
 * 2005-10-26 23:14:14
 * 2005-10-27 06:04:47

Version 4
Now Melchizedek's area is the "entire earth," and it was founded in 1991 when its constitution was signed, though still "conceived" in the 1950s.
 * 2005-11-13 05:04:32
 * 2005-11-13 05:49:10
 * 2005-11-13 06:12:06

Last stab
A quote from the Washington Post stated that the country which allegedly recognized DOM diplomatically would "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead." This is put into the article as
 * An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but commented that that nation would probably "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

Johnski wants it to say
 * 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 nation would "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

While this is a fuller quote, the distinction between these two versions is essentially negligible ... except that Johnski feels that the "you get the feeling" comment is somehow more favorable to the DOM claim. Johnski only attempts this twice before giving up:
 * 2005-11-15 08:24:02
 * 2005-11-15 19:03:02

Revert warring on Bokak Atoll
Inserting the same paragraph over and over and over again, despite removal by many others.
 * 2005-10-18 07:21:01
 * 2005-10-18 19:36:31
 * 2005-10-27 08:31:23
 * 2005-10-27 17:53:17
 * 2005-10-28 07:41:30
 * 2005-10-28 15:57:49 (7 hours, 26 minutes short of being a 3RR violation)
 * 2005-10-29 06:17:14
 * 2005-10-31 05:34:30
 * 2005-10-31 08:04:51
 * 2005-10-31 18:51:50
 * 2005-11-01 07:21:16 (1 hour, 47 minutes short of being a 3RR violation)
 * 2005-11-01 08:32:16 (28 minutes short of being a 3RR violation)
 * 2005-11-02 07:51:25
 * 2005-11-02 08:39:19 (1 hour, 18 minutes short of being a 3RR violation)

(This is a POV spun version of the original paragraph by the original author, inserted here: )

Revert warring on Solkope
Repeated insertion of identical or very similar material: (Again, takes a break to avoid violating 3RR, but comes right back and violates the intent.)
 * 
 * 
 * 2005-11-13 07:22:48
 * 2005-11-13 07:33:50
 * 2005-11-13 07:59:17
 * 2005-11-15 08:48:58

Revert warring and POV pushing on Micronation
Attempts to assert unequivocally that DOM is legally recognized. This is long after he has been made aware that nobody here except his sockpuppets accepts this "recognition" as valid.
 * 
 * 
 * 

Revert warring on Fictional country
Johnski attempts to subtly imply that DOM is not a fictional country by removing it from a list. The reason changes as Johnski learns he will be opposed on his original criteria.

As 67.124.49.20
All identical diffs:
 * reason given is the POV claim that DOM is "recognized"
 * 
 * asserts consensus from a debate which is not in evidence on the article talk page.

As Johnski

 * New justification, claiming that it should not be in the list because it is mentioned earlier in the article, but the list includes other fictional countries mentioned earlier in the article, such as Poyais.
 * again asserts nonexistent consensus
 * finally claims consensus is from other article; has yet to mention on this article's talk page

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point
Avoid self-references states "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project ... Such self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace, but they are inappropriate in articles. ... Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important." Wikipedia does not exist to write about itself, at least in the article namespace. WP:NOR states "What is excluded from articles? A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas; that is: ... it introduces original ideas ... it defines new terms." As other Wikipedians engaged in the entirely appropriate behavior of restraining Johnski, he grew angry and decided that what they were doing was inappropriate, undesirable, and worthy of negative attention. He violated both the no original research policy and the avoid self-references style guideline by inventing the term "Wikilante" and writing an article about it. WP:CSD indicates that a page may be speedily deleted if it is "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy," indicating that such recreation is forbidden. After SlimVirgin deleted the article once, Johnski immediately recreated it.

WP:POINT states "Do not interrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia in order to make a point. ... State your point; don't prove it experimentally." Knowing that his material had been deleted, Johnski willingly recreated it in order to attempt to gain attention and make his point by disrupting Wikipedia.


 * Wikilante deletion history:
 * Johnski admits that the disruptive article was an attempt to force his point and force communication
 * More admission that the disruption came after communication stopped (characterized as the other side being unwilling to compromise):

Spamming on Bible
As mentioned earlier, Johnski's activities have shown the singular goal of gaining exposure for DOM by including it in as many articles as possible.
 * Attempt to spam "Bible translation" info:
 * Claim of consensus from receiving no response

Spamming on Rotuma

 * 

Spamming on DOM

 * Attempts to create a new acronym wholesale:

Spamming on Ecclesiastical state, etc.

 * Creation of Ecclesiastical state: (extensive revert warring also occurred on this article, which I have declined to document)
 * Creates Ecclesiastical government after to failing to get what he wants on the Ecclesiastical state article:
 * Revert wars when he is caught:
 * Attempt to redirect the EState article, where he has lost the battle, to EGovernment (also removing an AFD tag in the process):
 * More revert warring on EState
 * That didn't work, so he adds a category: