User talk:Johnski/ArchieveArbitrationevidence

This is an archive. Please do not edit it in any way.

Evidence presented by {Johnski}

This is my response to Davidpdx's allegations.

Not a part of an organizational push

I am not a part of an organizational push, only tried to take an interesting article and make it more interesting by showing more than one side to the story, and adding important U.S. governmental quotes and links, removing bias, toning down strong language, removing errors, etc. I was delighted to learn how Wikipedia works which lead to other articles that had some connection, but wasn’t trying to spam or advertise anything by exploring wiki-linking from and to other articles, categories. Made many good arguments for these changes, corrections, additions, all of which were ignored by Davidpdx and some of his allies, such as can be see at: [1], and [2], and [3].

3RR

There may have been a few 3RR violations in the early stages out of not understanding the rules, but mostly tried to edit to improve the article instead of merely reverting and fought again plain bias.

Lack of Wikiquette by Davidpdx

Davidpdx has become more polite recently, but has been cruel in what he has written in the past and showed his inability to work with me, as per: [4] he wrote:

“Second, I have stated I am not willing to work with you, therefore why would I respond to your email? This was a conversation we had a month ago in which you never responded. You would not respond to my prompts for proof as to certain claims you were making. In addition, your good buddy Samspade was insulting. Why would I work with either of you now? Third, you are now claiming seven people support the version that you are pushing? I really think you should stop taking acid, it's really making you have delusions. In fact, there are TWO people (you and Samspade) that are pushing for the revisions. There are at lease three people that oppose any changes. Either way there is no consensus. If you would actually bother to read the rules, you would see that this means that the previous version must remain unless a consensus can be reached.” .... Davidpdx 12:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Falsely claiming that KAJ was my sock-puppet Davidpdx wrote that I’m a complete idiot:

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

Davidpdx taking control over DOM and other articles

Davidpdx has taken control over the DOM article and the Taongi article before it was protected, but has never contributed one edit to either other than adding "fraud" as a category. Jdavidb has backed Davidpdx up, without making any edits.

No substance to Davidpdx’s claims

His allegations herein have not shown any substance, only links expecting the arbitrators to figure out why mine and others articles were not better than the ones he and a few others insist on reverting to.

Even my last DOM edit which only corrected a mis-characterization of an article from the Washington Post where I changed "probably" to what the article really stated, "you get the feeling", they will not let stand. Davidpdx showed some interest in this change, but cowered to Gene_Poole when he insisted to let it stand as "probably" which is what Poole claimed was what the article really meant even though it said, "you get the feeling". Now Jdavidb in his evidence can’t see why the quote shouldn’t be accurate. As if Wikipedia standards shouldn’t insist on accuracy when quoting from a source such as the Washington Post.

Wikilante

I hope that the wisdom in my article I created about Wikilante will someday be accepted, as it wasn't intended as harassment, only a cry for help with Davidpdx's vigilante behavior. I hoped it could be a useful wikiword to be used when vigilante behavior was found elsewhere by others. I also hoped it would help Davidpdx to see what he was doing. Contrary to what Jdavidb claims in his evidence, I didn’t understand what happened to the article, so tried a second time to post an improved version, but quit when I realized two admins had deleted it.

Gene_Poole main culprit

Although Davidpdx's behavior has impeded the progress of the DOM article, the main culprit, is Gene_ Poole. Although Poole has made some useful contributions to the related article, Poole seems to have no regard for the truth, is flippant, full of insults, and writes whatever suits his fancy. (See evidence submitted by KAJ). Poole acts like a bully with Davidpdx acting like his enforcer.

Below Davidpdx inserts his comments to my evidence

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. [5]

you wrote 5 to 7 Sept but looking at the first link [5] it is Sept 4th. As pointed out that could be an 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 (evidence) in, and you noticed I didn't write in your (evidence) 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 [6] 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)

• ===Removal of Negative Information ===

Davidpdx wrote in the evidence section below: "Here are diffs showing first the version that has consensus [7]and then his whitewashed version [8]. But (Scamdog) is not the only site Johnski has removed, another one is called Quatloos! [9] which is a non-profit financial & tax fraud education website. When he removes these links, he also removes the quotes that were in the article. This is again, essentially whitewashing the article of negative links and quotes in favor of the very waterdown misquotes he would rather use."

• This again shows that Davidpdx doesn't read the articles, or look at the links, as the link to quatloos is there right after the most damning statement about DOM and purportedly made by John Shockey, former employee of the US OCC. Davidpdx can not show one misquote from me. Sincerely, Johnski 20:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

US OCC issue

Davidpdx complains to this arbitration panel that “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 official 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.’”

What Davidpx fails to point out is that after Jdavidb showed that “however” wasn’t a good follow up to the statement from Shockey, I never used “however” again in this context. In my last attempt to substantially improve the article on November 13, 2005, [10] I wrote, “The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek as a 'non-recognized sovereignty' that 'licensed' Caribbean Bank of Commerce." In the external links this is called a “warning” from the US OCC as seen further below.

Doesn’t it seem fitting that if you are going to quote a former employee of the US OCC that you also quote from that employee’s boss from their official web site on the subject?

Davidpdx goes on to mis-characterize, “He (Johnski) 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.’" [11]

While it may or may not be true that the alert is regarding “fraudulent” banks, the alert doesn’t call the banks “fraudulent” as Davidpdx falsely claims. While Davidpdx claims to have worked with me, he could have easily come up with a compromise language to address his concern, but only reverts the article to versions that he never authors. In fact in previous editions I had mentioned the context of the quotes.

Davidpdx continues, “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.”

This begs the question, if the US OCC website "proves" what Davidpdx claims, then why doesn’t he want to see the referenced quotes in the article?

I am not inserting anything of my opinion about recognition in the article, only quoting what the US OCC web site states. My opinions on the talk page are only opinions, but I have never indicated that the reference to DOM on the US OCC web site is any form of dejure or “diplomatic” recognition of DOM as Davidpdx falsely claims.

Also, the November 15 article referenced above does have a link in the external links to the Quatloos article here:

• Dominion of Melchizedek as a Scam - Collection of all negative articles and opinions about Melchizedek and its founders, quoting only the negative aspects, and the criminal activities of the banks it licensed.
• Warning from the Comptroller of the US Treasury Department.

Certainly my last version needs more work, but instead of merely reverting, Davidpdx and others should try to keep the stuff that belongs there, such as quotes from US government web sites, more details of DOM’s origin, etc. There are a growing number that see the need for this as evidenced on the DOM talk page.

Selective Use of Sources

Davidpdx falsely claims that by bringing two quotes of the SEC case to the DOM article I am using selective sources. The opposite is the truth. Adding more evidence from the same source is being more inclusive. Davidpdx writes, under the heading Selective Use of Sources, "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."[12].

My last attempt on November 13 [13], to balance the two statements from the US SEC was as follows: "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. [14]. When the SEC concluded that case, it wrote that the 'Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments.'"[15]

The "non-existent" statement by the US SEC was never removed by me, only balanced by the fact that the SEC ended with a different statement than it started with. In this case, it is Davidpdx that wants an unbalanced, selective account of the facts. Again, if Davidpdx was really interested in reaching consensus, he could have easily added something to point out that the New York lawyer was purportedly using a DOM bank but the reader has two links to learn the whole story. My intention isn't to push anything here, just give a more complete picture. I didn't write what the SEC wrote, am not claiming that it is any form of recognition, only think that it needs to be quoted to make the article fair and balanced. Johnski 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

TAONGI

After drini said that he liked a toned down version of the Taongi article with mention of DOM, Dadivpdx concurred, but later denied his concurrence: [16] Gotta say I like the new version much better as it's been toned down. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) You would hope so. At least for now it has. Davidpdx 9/29/05 7:48 (UTC)

Reverting without Consensus, Inability to show good faith and discuss before reverting

Davidpdx claims that I didn’t discuss before reverting which is the opposite of the truth, when in fact he is the one that reverts without discussing. I was patient with him for 11 days waiting to see the slightest progress but he was incapable of showing any good faith. Davidpdx never made one suggestion to change anything in the DOM or Taongi articles. If he couldn’t show any progress after 9 days, when would he show it?

Davidpdx claims I didn’t cite any credible sources, yet between myself and others, the Washington Post, Forbes Magazine, Context Magazine, CBS and SBS TV programs, SEC and OCC web sites were cited. Davidpdx also didn’t think that the web site of DOM was a source that could be cited or used. This shows that he clearly doesn’t understand Wikipedia policies.

Boldly Edit

Wikipedia policy to boldly edit out bias was brought to Davidpdx’s attention, but it fell on death ears.

Davidpdx stated that he would rather see a reversion war than find a compromise.

Davidpdx’s use of Johnski Email/IP

It appears that Davidpdx’s only reason for inviting me to communicate via email was to gain knowledge of my email IP address as Davidpdx never responded to my email, but falsely leads you to believe he did by referring to an “exchange of emails” which never occurred.

Davidpdx’s inability to reason logically regarding myself and the DOM article

The most recent and blatant example is that Davidpdx claims that a blog called “Rotuma Scam” belongs to me. However, there is no connection between myself and that Blog, and none can be evidenced by Davidpdx. [17]. You can see that the author of that Blog has made the argument below in two sections that there is no connection between the name “Johnski” and Jonathan Edelstein. It also shows that Davidpdx doesn’t read what I write, because he claims I’m Jewish as is Jonathan Edelstein, but as I have pointed out to both Davidpdx and Jdavidb that I am a Christian Scientist. So Davidpdx is off on every point, including the most important one, that being, that, he claims that I am pro-DOM, but the blog that he doesn’t wanted linked from the Rotuma article is clearly NOT pro-DOM.

Rebuttal to Jdavidb

• • 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.

This is patently untrue, as the article still gives a very negative view of DOM in light of the quotes from Shockey saying that the whole thing is a major fraud, and the other fraud related and negative aspects to the article that I have not removed.

Revert warring on Dominion of Melchizedek

Since September 23, 2005 Jdavidb, Davidpdx, Gene_Poole and his suspected sock puppet, Centauri, have reverted the DOM article 70 time, few of which included edits.

Davidpdx falsely claims that I reverted the DOM article 60 times, but since I began September 4th I have only reverted the article less than half that many times most of which have included edits or relevant comments.

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 [18]

• So, trying to make the quote accurate implies legitimacy?

Version 2

Jdavidb wrote in his evidence: 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.

• Context magazine is the source for the 1950’s not me, so doesn’t it improve the article to add more history? A micronation is an “entity” isn’t it? There is no evidence that DOM operated the banks, so shouldn’t that fact be clarified?

Citing 2005-09-29 07:11:11 [19]

2005-09-29 23:08:16 [20]

Jdavidb wrote: 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.

• Here Jdavidb claims that quoting from the SEC web site is a “damning quote”. So only use quotes that lend Jdavidb’s POV to the article? I’ve never claimed that this is recognition of DOM. The following is only one of the quotes from the Quatloos web site used in the article and clearly doesn’t belong there. No where in the article does it state that DoM is claiming to have “received recognition from any major government”, so why should it be quoted?

Dude, you're like, way confused. A "damning quote" means it is damning or detrimental to your POV. What I'm pointing out is not that there's a problem with the quote but that you're trying to use a quote that does NOT say anything supporting your case and frame it in such a way that it appears to support your case. But expect that in response to this you'll just pretend to have missed the point I am making. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jdavidb, Thank you for clarifying your point, however it changes nothing, since my attempt was clearly to bring balance to the article (and only from) what the SEC wrote, and nothing more. The point is that the SEC certainly drew a different conclusion when they settled their case, otherwise they would have stuck to only referring to DOM as "non-existent". You only wanting to quote that part of what they said, would be no different than if I only wanted to quote the concluding statement. Ignoring either is wrong. If it is true that you don't see a problem with the quote, why do you keep removing it, or why don't you change the context to what you think is appropriate? If the SEC first wrote that DOM had "a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity" then when settling the case, stated it was "non-existent", then there would be nothing to balance. How can something that is non-existent have "a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity", so obviously the US SEC realized that DOM does in fact exist, and attempted to give an explanation of what it purports to exist as. Again, I have never claimed that this is any sort of recognition by the US SEC. Certainly you can accept this reality?

Regarding your claim that linking the Melchizedek Bible is spamming, that is not true, since it is an online version of the Bible, and there is a section for such on the subject of Bible. However, after seeing [21] I realized that it didn't belong there, and quit. When you realize you are wrong, you persist, i.e. the WP issue, etc. Also, I see you can't answer my questions on your user page of long ago. Certainly your hatred for Christian Science affects your judgment here? Cordially, Johnski 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

POV BIRDS OF A FEATHER

Quoting from Jdavidb’s evidence:

2005-10-15 21:01:44 [22] (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.)

• On this subject, Davidpdx and Jdavidb seem to have the same logical reasoning problems, as Jdavidb is claiming that my quoting the US OCC as having referred to DOM as a “non-recognized sovereignty” that DOM is a “sovereignty” as opposed to “unrecognized”. I’ve never made any such argument, only argued that a sovereignty is a sovereignty whether recognized or not, but my opinion isn’t in the article, and have only asked that the US OCC web site be quoted as saying exactly what it states, that the US OCC refers to DOM as “an unrecognized sovereignty”.

Version 3

Quoting from Jdavidb’s evidence: “Finally conceded DOM is a micronation

2005-10-19 00:21:34 [23]

• This does not concede that DOM is a micronation, only gave into it for the sake of trying to get along, something that the Davids and Poole can’t show they have tried to do.

Version 4

Quoting from Jdavidb’s evidence: “Now Melchizedek's (unofficially claimed) area is the "entire earth," and it was founded in 1991 when its constitution was signed, though still "conceived" in the 1950s.”

• This is all documented on the talk page with quotes from CBS and citing Context Magazine.

Last stab

• Even my last stab to get the WP article accurately quoted, Jdavidb thinks is my attempt to make the DOM seem more favorable. Why does that have to be the case? And who cares if accurately quoting the WP does or doesn’t make the DOM look more favorable? So let’s make the quote less accurate to make the DOM look less favorable, must be the argument, but is that Wikipedian policy?

Spamming on Ecclesiastical state, etc.

The fact is that Ecclesiastical government has been adopted as a Wikipedian article, so something good has come out of this debate, and a new article.

I didn’t start DOM as an acronym, as it has been used in credible sources outside of Wikipedia to refer to Dominion of Melchizedek.

I either answered Jdavidb’s other issues already or in some cases don’t feel that it is necessary to respond, as all of my efforts have been in good faith, and I have shown an ability to grow with my contributions at Wikipedia.