Talk:Bokak Atoll/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is an archive page, do not edit it in any way. Please post comments on the current talk page.

DOM Reference

Why remove the reference to Melchizedek

Bokak (as Taongi Islands) is claimed by the Government of the Dominion of Melchizedek, an embryonic ecclesiastical state. The claim was rejected by the Government of the Marshall Islands[1],however, subsequent to the RMI encouraging friendly nations to avoid recognizing any claims of Melchizedek that are within RMI's territorial limits, the Iroijlaplap of Taongi declared on film which was broadcast on Australian SBS TV [2] that he granted Melchizedek a 50 years sovereign lease over Taongi, valid until 2049.

67.124.49.20 06:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bollar, what claims did Melchizedek make at the time of the RMI memo, probably none? If i remember they only had an assignment of deveopment rights, but after the memo, it was on SBS TV in Australia that they received a 50 years sovereign lease from Taongi's Iroijlaplap. (Anonymously posted by user:68.123.207.17

DOM had already announced their plans for Bokak, as indicated on their own site as of December 12, 1998. The RMI memo directly addresses this plan. As for the SBS broadcast, please cite the source and broadcast date. Is this a broadcast of the "interview made for DOM TV?"

On the 4th day of September 1987, Murjel Hermios, the recognized Iroijlaplap (king or paramount chief) and owner of the Northern Atolls of the Marshall Islands', Ratak Chain, granted a Special Power of Attorney to Robert Moore wherein Mr. Moore as Alab, gained for 55 years, the assignable right to develop Taongi Atoll and determine its highest and best use. On May 28, 1997, Robert Moore assigned all of his rights, title and interest in Taongi; and authorized the "Dominion of Melchizedek to do every act and thing necessary to transfer unto itself said rights, title and interest, and sanction(ed) its objectives to develop, govern and administer an environmentally sound business community, investment and tax haven paradise at Taongi Atoll, ultimately styled after that of Hong Kong". According to a former DOM Minister of External Affairs for Asian Pacific, the uninhabited Taongi, located at approximately 14.35 North latitude and 169.0 East longitude is one of the most beautiful group of islands in the world. The RMI has denounced DOM's plans to move Taongi into a sovereign status under Melchizedek, yet some of the RMI's top officials have indicated a willingness to discuss the RMI officially recognizing DOM.[3]

Bollar 22:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Atol and connection to fraud

A lot of relevant information culd be written about such atol. That some low notability fraudster used its name is IMHO the least important think here and therefore has no place here. Pavel Vozenilek 14:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Samboy 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, and don't know where you get your information, because what I have learned is that far more than some low notability fraudster simply using the name of Taongi, when in fact, there is not only a sovereign lease from the recognized Iroijlaplap of Taongi to Melchizedek documented on by SBS TV Australia, but Melchizedek has official and formal diplomatic recognition as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" from at least one UN member state and treaties of peace and recognition from three other UN member states. Not only has the fact of recognition been published by media around the globe, but Melchizedek has been featured on many international TV networks. I don't know of any micronation that has received the media attention nor the level of recognition that Melchizedek has received, regardless of the negative spin often presented.

67.124.49.20 06:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing obsession by unknown user

An unknown user has been editing this article as well as related articles inserting POV statements into the articles. To this unknown person, please stop. If you would take the time to read and follow the rules of Wikipedia you would have alot more sucess in getting your point across. Instead, you push your own agenda regardless of the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Until you do so, myself as well as others will continue to revert the vandalism that you insist on adding to these articles. Davidpdx 9/14/05 10:25 (UTC)

David: Please look up Wikipedia's meaning of vandalism, and note that Bollar added Melchizedek to this topic, not I, and you are the one that is obsessed with removing it, as i'm only trying to restore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bokak_Atoll&oldid=5910940 with reasonable editing, however, I do appreciate your trying to help me to get my point across. I'm a slow learner and am making slow progress in this regard. Please be patient with me. Regards, John 67.124.49.20 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, your claims have not factual basis. You continue to revert this page back in violation of the rules of Wikipedia. The last 5 edits were done by you under the unidentified user 67.124.49.20. I'm not sure how you are claiming someone else posted those revisions. Maybe a ghost did it? Nevertheless, we will continue reverting this page and ban you if necessary.Davidpdx 9/15/05 4:22 (UTC)

David, there is plenty of evidence of the factual basis for the editions all of which I believe I have provided. Please take a specific point that you believe is not factual and lets take one point at a time. I'm not saying the last 5 reversions with id 67.124.49.20 weren't mine, I'm saying that Bolar is the one that started mentioning Melchizedek on this page, not me! Cordially, John 67.124.49.20 07:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

First off, just because you say that someone (in this case Bolar)talked about something, doesn't give you the right to post anything you want. Reading back through the conversation, it was indeed you that mentioned ROM first. Second, there has to be a concensus of people that agree with the facts that are in dispute. You have failed to take that into consideration. If I went to the page for Bush and started spouting off things that were unproven, I'd get banned. This is what happened to you. If you would like to play by the rules, then great. How hard is it to sign up for an ID if you have no ill intentions? Please answer that question. I hope you enjoyed your vacation from Wikipedia, as I'm willing to give you one anytime you need it. Sincerely, Davidpdx 9/15/05 2:24 (UTC)

David, I really don't think that I have violated the spirit of the rules here as all of my work has been in good faith. The example you give of spouting off about Bush is way off base. You didn't give me any words that I wrote quoted back to me that you feel is spouting off. I believe that my numerical id is more honest than a lettered one, because the numbered one gives a more real id, i.e. phyical or cyberspace location and makes it harder to make multiple ids. I don't recall if I was first to mention Melchizedek on the talk page, but I'm certain that I wasn't the first to mention it on the article page, so if you really believe what you wrote give me the link that predates Bollars that I showed above. My only point is that I'm not the one to have the idea to put Melchizedek in this article, but can't understand why some feel it doesn't belong there. If my rewrite of Bollar offends you let me know what part is so bad, and recommend a change to it. Looking forward to your more studied response and more success on my part from this approach. Sincerely, John 67.124.49.20 07:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

First, your IP is not that real of an ID as I learned the hard way today. I reverted what I thought was vandalism based on an IP address of someone who had been trashing pages. Someone told me that more one person can be working of that IP. I'm just trying to point out that it can cause some confusion. Second, I'm not trying to be mean, I really do think you should try to build more of a consensus on what you are trying to add to the article. Just because you agree with the proof, doesn't mean a large number of Wikipedians agree with it. So my suggestion is to revert the edit, I won't put vandalism this time. Instead I will put "See Talk Page" or something similar. Hopefully that will be seen as a kinder more gentle act by you. Thus we will be at a truce.

If you sign up for an account, I'll make you a deal. Send me all of your information (be it links, documents, etc) and I will read them. Even if it's 500 pages (ok, please not that much!). I'll tell you honestly what I think. If necessary, I'll give you an email address you can send something to me if perhaps it is not availble on the internet. In return, your promise that between now and the end of the week you won't revert this page, Ecclesiastical state or Dominion of Melchizedek. This will give me a chance to read through whatever you send me.

So I'm offering to help, the ball is in your court. If you would like to, feel free to leave a response either here and/or on my talk page (which I will see when I log on). Davidpdx 9/16/05 9:30 (UTC)

Davidpdx, OK, I took your advice and got a user name. It won't take 500 pages to get my point to you, as it isn't that complicated. Let's just take one point at a time. You can pick the first thing that you see I have posted and give me the reason that it isn't correct, and I'll give you my response, how's that? When I tried to click onto your name above it sent me somewhere other than your page. John Johnski 00:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

John, I apologize for my lack of a follow up. As I explained before, sometimes the bs on here just really makes me mad. Most of it had to do with thing other then what we have discussed. Anyway, I would like to see proof in regards to the claim about DOM. Please send me the information. I will leave you an email address. Davidpdx 9/28/05 11:22 (UTC)

Posting of information on this page without consensus

There seems to be no consensus regarding the information about DOM, yet one or two people persist on posting the same information over and over. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Consensusas well as Wikipedia:POV pushing. (Side note: I made some minor changes to this talk page to make it more user friendly). Davidpdx 9/25/05 12:21 (UTC)

It seems more than a few people agree with the view you are rejecting. I also see that Johnski followed you advice but you then dropped the ball. Which leads me to believe that he is more sincere.

And who would you be, anonymous poster? -- The Anome 08:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did drop the ball. The reason is larger then just simply this page, but more over some of the bs that is going on Wikipedia. I got into a hot argument with someone over another page due to the political garbage (much worse then what is being posted here) that was being posted. I basically blew off Wikipedia for a few days. It's not a lack of sincerity.

I would still infact like to see the proof he has. I have left a message on his page asking him to discuss the subject on this talk page so some consensus can be reached. Davidpdx 9/28/05 11:19 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else here, but I at least am fairly certain that the mysterious anonymous IP/multi-identity DOM promoter is either one of the Pedleys or the current "President" Richard McDonald. The technique that this editor has adopted of claiming that frauds perpetrated by the founders and agents of Melchizedek are somehow divorced from the DOM itself is described at length in most of the articles that expose DOM's criminal activities. --Gene_poole 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have severe doubts about the claim. The thing I'm trying to prevent is a revert war. Basically I'm saying, let's settle this once and for all. After that, if it continues it then becomes vandalism in my opinion. There are discussions going on in terms of what to do about the pages for Ecclesiastical state and Ecclesiastical government as well. The same claim is being made on those pages as well as many others. At some point it's either provide the proof and see if it's sufficiant, if it isn't then it can't be posted anymore. Davidpdx 9/29/05 7:43 (UTC)

"Eleven islands" claim

I've removed a claim that the atoll consists of eleven islands: I can't see them on any satellite views, just a single atoll. Of course, if you know different, please feel free to link to a cite, and to a satellite image at a reputable source. Note: links to the "Dominion of Melchizedek" website are unlikely to be regarded as authoritative. -- The Anome 08:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It can be hard to see how many islands in at atoll from a satellite view. But it took a 1 minute google search to find this: http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/atolls/bokak.html which states that there are eleven islets in the atoll. Dougg 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

29 sept

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) See comments below Davidpdx 10:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, this may be the place that I felt you approved a version that I endorsed, and if I misread you here I ask for you to forgive me, as it was an honest mistake. As Drini said that he liked the new version much better which was a version that was just posted before he wrote that, and your response led me to believe that you liked the toned down version, where you wrote, "you would hope so", in response. Additionally, I think you misunderstand my approach which isn't to prove that DOM is good in any way, but to let readers decide the case by putting both sides of the story there from acceptable sources and build it from things that there is already consensus for. Sincerely,Johnski 06:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

My comment is not clearly attributed to what Drini said, obviously I didn't read it very well because I now reread it and do not agree. It is possible I wrote that late at night and I was tired. To set the record straight, I will leave the comment, but put a line through it to show that I am changing my comment. Furthermore, this conversation is old news, anything new should be posted down at the bottom of the page to keep the conversation in chronological order. Davidpdx 10:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion

The consensus discussion regarding whether DOM has control over Bokak Atoll is taking place on the Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek. Please do not change this until the debate is settled. After that a consensus discussion will be held on this page as to the actuall wording of the article. Davidpdx 9/30/05 4:30 (UTC)

Bokak (as the "Taongi Islands") has been claimed as part of its sovereign territory by the "Government of the Dominion of Melchizedek", an entity, aspiring to statehood, that has a history of licensing banks that defaud investors. The only basis for this claim seems to be related to a "sovereign master lease" granted by the Iroijlaplap of Taongi Atoll.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokak_Atoll"

I think it is much easier to deal with this seperately because it is a much smaller issue than the entire Melchizedek story. Therefore, over here please consider that this version appears to perfectly factual and balanced, because it has claimed as part of its sovereign territory Taongi and DOM clearly is an entity, aspiring to statehood, that has a history of licensing banks that defaud investors. This gives the counter balance in a polite way, that "The only basis for this claim seems to be related to a 'sovereign master lease' granted by the Iroijlaplap of Taongi Atoll." There is no dispute over whether or not the Iroijlaplap granted such a lease, only the fact as to the meaning of the lease, which should be left for readers to decide without opinions of our writers inserting stuff.SamuelSpade 22:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, it is very much part of the Melchizedek issue. If it can't be proven that Bokak Atoll or any other territory it claims is legitimate, then it should not be mentioned in this article.

As to the claim of it being "perfectly factual and balanced" this is something neither you nor John has proven yet. If you look at John's talk page, I posted links to the rules on Wikipedia in terms of sourcing. The proof that the two of you are using is not sufficent at this point. If I don't change it, I guarentee someone else will. You can't simply break the rules that are set by Wikipedia to create what you think is a fair and balanced article.

In terms of this article and the DOM article, there is still no consensus. Therefore, until there is it has to remain as it is written currently. I have asked both you to post the links to articles from SBS and others, which I have not yet read. Davidpdx 14:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi was seen on SBS TV saying that he "granted Melchizedek a 50 year master sovereign lease over Taongi." The only dispute is over the significance of that lease. The way this is written now clearly lets the reader decide the significance of that instead of a Wikipedian making his or her opinion of its meaning, so please revert to the compromise version that is clearly factual and balanced. If you don't revert it, you can be sure someone else will. This is clearly a smaller issue than the entire article about Melchizedek. While the entire article of Melchizedek may never be resolved and end up a reversion war, this issue is small enough to resolve now.SamuelSpade 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In terms of how consensus is defined on Wikipedia, that has not been reached. Also I have asked countless times to see the SBS clip and you have yet to produce it. The proof of a master sovereign lease over Taongi (aka Bokak Atoll) has not been shown. Wikipedia has certain rules regarding proof.

I urge you to check out the following links regarding policies on using sources on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Cite sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Verifiability

In terms of this article being reverted, if it is it will be deemed vandalism and reported. Davidpdx 03:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have now added a tag claiming there is a dispute of facts on this page. There needs to be a consensus regarding this material. This material DIRECTLY relates to the debate going on on the Dominion of Melchizedek page as well as the Ecclesiastical State page. Simply changing it does not mean you have consensus. Davidpdx 9/30/05 8:07 (UTC)

Please DO NOT remove NPOV tag. The material in this article IS being disputed. If you remove the tag again, I will report it as vandalism. Davidpdx 10/3/05 8:53 (UTC)

There is consensus and glad to see we cleared up part of our misunderstanding

Dear Davidpdx, there is consensus over the fact that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi did grant DOM a 50 years sovereign lease, so please stop removing that fact from the article. It is in the protected article and has been in every article about DOM for months.

I'm glad that we were able to clear up that I had reason to believe you had approved one of the versions here. Thank you for your honesty. SincerelyJohnski 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No you are mistaken, there is not consensus about this issue. What do I need to say to be more clear about it. Davidpdx 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

proof of consensus

Davidpdx, Gene, here is a quote that has been left the same by every editor for very long time and is in the protected version, that both of you have reverted to, quoting from the DOM article: "the recognized Iroijlaplap (chief) of Taongi appeared on an Australian television current affairs programme in which he was quoted as saying he granted Melchizedek a 50 year sovereign lease over Taongi Atoll."

Can we agree that the rest of the article gives the necessary discloures? I think it is best not to use more inflamatory language hoping not to upset people like Wikifacts. I think if we leave this like it is now, it is very unlikely to be the subject of a reversion war. Progressively, Johnski 07:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is also quoted from the article that you have reverted to, "being directly linked to large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world". Johnski 06:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek nonsense

I have removed the Melchizedek nonsense from this page. This is an uninhabited sovereign territory of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and they haven't given it away to anyone. Furthermore, nobody from "Melchizedek" has ever set foot there, nor are they ever likely to, and hence they have no way of asserting their "claim". Indeed, the fact that they "claim" it is totally meaningless. They might as well "claim" the moon. --Centauri 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Centauri, The only reason that most people know about Taongi is because of the lease that Melchizedek has over it, from Taongi's Paramount Chief. Melchizedek's claim to Taongi has been mentioned in several credible news sources, and is in the Wiki article about Melchizedek, a micronation. Micronations are one of the 500 most popular topics in Wikipedia. We don't know if any Melchizedekian has ever set foot on Taongi, and it really doesn't matter either way. You have been accused of being a sock-puppet of Gene Poole and as you both use "nonsense" so often that encourages me to believe the argument. Having a claim to the moon is a far fetched comparision. And a lease from a Iroijlaplpa is not meaningless. Sincerely, Johnski 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I have had disagreements and heated arguments with Centauri, but I agree with him on the Melchizedek issue. I have added this page to my watchlist and will revert on sight any Melchizedek content added to this article. Samboy 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Centauri, despite what anyone says, I don't believe what's being said in terms of you being both people. I'd encourage you to continue to watch the pages regardless of the accusations Johnski or others come up with. As I've said, I'm going to take a more passive role and get back to editing some articles that I want to improve and/or create. That doesn't mean I won't be watching him though. Davidpdx 03:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins "A Wikipedian article about the Dominion of Melchizedek..." cannot be placed into this article because it is a violation of the guidelines in WP:ASR. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is also clearly not approved by the consensus of the editors on this article, as only one has attempted to insert it, but several have reverted. It has definitely not won consensus on the talk page. Consensus on the talk page is necessary when you insert something and it is reverted: the reversion indicates that consensus does not yet exist and you should discuss your change and obtain consensus on the talk page before inserting it again.

Johnski, this edit warring has got to stop. The three revert rule is not a license to make three reverts per day. You are consistently making as many reverts as you possibly can so that you violate the spirit of the law while not violating the letter. That's unacceptable. I'm going to look into where I can report you for this.

If you want to have any hope of exerting any influence over these articles, you had better listen up and start confining yourself to proposing changes on the talk page and waiting for consensus before editing articles. Otherwise you are going to be reverted by multiple editors as long as you are here and will ultimately find yourself blocked because of edit warring. You can and will be blocked for edit warring even if you have never technically violated the three revert rule.

I want to encourage you to read completely through WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club before proceeding. I also want to point you to the sentence in WP:SOCK which states, "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." As far as I can tell you are, so far, a single-purpose account holder here at Wikipedia. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. JDavidb et al: Melchizedek's claim to this Atoll has be covered by international media both in print and tele. It is worthy of mention. The text is from the DOM article that there is consensus for. If it can't be said that it is quoting from Wikipedia, just take the word Wikipedia out.KAJ 06:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

KAJohnski, this claim has not been demonstrated to the consensus of editors of any article and any alleged documentation within Wikipedia only exists due to edit warring and not following the rules. Wikipedia is not a source. Sources used in Wikipedia can be a source, but of course they are open to examination and questioning. As mentioned ad infinitum, the alleged claims appear ludicrous to every Wikipedia editor so far other than all your sockpuppets that exist only to promote DOM. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Johnski I don't know where you get the idea that there is any consensus on either articles for your garbage, but there is not. I would warn you that this IS going to mediation and we will make it known about the various sockpuppets. If you revert, we will push to have your access to Wikipedia limited. I would take these threats very seriously. Davidpdx 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Davids: It appears you have never taken the time to read or study a subject for which you claim to be experts. The parts that are quoted come from the article about Melchizedek that you and your supporters have repeatedly reverted to, and Gene Poole, et al have edited to their liking, are those portions. The real reason, as I see it, is that you just don't like the subject, so you want to remove it from Wikipedia. To me, the subject is interesting, and famous enough like other subjects to be covered in all of its notorious aspects. Melchizedek claims Clipperton, but I don't see that that is worth including in the Clipperton article, because that claim doesn't rise to the fame of Taongi and Solkope, nor are there leases involved.KAJ 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Johnski, I never once claimed to be an expert on DOM. You are wrong, I have read some about DOM and I do honestly believe it is a fraud. I have no problem with their being articles on the issue on Wikipedia, but they must (as the rules state) have the sources to back them up. You have repeatedly made claims that did not have the sources or used bogus sources (such as the blog) to try to prove points. In addition, you have reverted pages without consensus, lied about having consensus, misrepresented the rules of Wikipedia to push your own agenda and so on. If you want to continue to sit on your high horse and scream foul, that's fine. However, myself and others are not going to allow you to hijack Wikipedia to further your own cause. That's not why Wikipedia is here. Davidpdx 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: Please don't address me as Johnski. I haven't lied about anything, have not misrepresented the rule on Wikipedia. However, you have done both. No matter how many times you say it, it won't make me Johnski. I only have one user name, KAJ. I still doubt you understand what it is that is going on here about this subject. You are nothing but a broken record on the subject of DOM and seem to have nothing to offer, with the exception of Solkope, which you did seem to make an honest attempt to resolve. Thank you for that much!KAJ 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is you have reverted this article as well as others a number of times without consensus and have not admitted you were dead wrong in doing so. Do you want to talk about good faith? How about admitting it? Yes, I have read about the subject. The reason I sound like a broken record is because myself and others are standing our ground and we are no longer going to allow you to revert articles because you disagree with them. As to your accusation that I lied, please tell me what lie you think I told? Davidpdx 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It is you that is reverting articles that you don't agree with merely because you don't want to hear or see anything about DOM, which is the issue that makes this article most worth having in Wikipedia, as has gotten the most news for Taongi that I can find. I quoted from the article about DOM that you claim has consensus, that you repeatedy reverted to, but you can't accept that, and lie that there is no consensus for the facts quoted about the Iroijlaplap lease to DOM. Another lie is that you claim that I am a sock-puppet. It may not be intentional that you lied, but when I have more time, I'll try to find the other lies I've noticed in the past.KAJ 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad your claiming self-rightously that you've never committed an act in bad faith. That should be pretty easy to counter since you, Johnski, have reverted many articles including the DOM article (60+) and yes this IS ON RECORD. Maybe you should just go put your head in the toilet and flush it. That's about how clueless you are about your own behavior. 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: Are you ready to humble yourself and admit that you "comitted" any acts in bad faith. It is really funny you calling me "self-rightous" when you are the one that has been saying that you are the only one right and everything that I and those that I agree with are either puppet-masters, sock-puppets or are never right about anything. I've seen efforts to bend your way, but nothing coming from you, with the exception of Solkope, which you are now taking back. Your behavior has been less that that hoped for in Wikipedians according to Wikiquette. Perhaps I should examine myself, but I doubt that I've been self-righteous. It has been pointed out to you that you shouldn't call a good faith edit/reversion attempts vandalism, but in your self-righteousness you continue in that behavior. In mean words, you have called into question my intelligence, but I have tried to be civil towards you. Nevertheless, I admit that I have not always followed the highest standards of Wikiquette. Your many false and mean accusations make you the self-righteous one.KAJ 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black? As I said, I'm not the one that is on record reverting the DOM article 60 times. Are you claiming those are all "good-faith" edits? You just don't get it do you? Davidpdx 20:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Note: The request for arbitration has been removed from this page. The updated version of this document can be found here: [4]. This was done to save space on this talk page as well as to keep the primary discussion on the main DOM page. If you have any questions about this, please put a note on my talk page. Davidpdx 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks good. I don't think it's a good idea to list "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" as separate users, since there is a belief that these two people are the same user (e.g. look here); however I have dealt with this editor before, so go ahead and add my name to the list. Samboy, 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks good to me, although it is actually User:Calton, not User:Carlton. I would also include a list of all the other articles he has vandalized or created to promote his agenda - it's quite long. --Centauri 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the user name and added the additional articles he has been involved in. Hopefully the the mediation case will go forward soon. Davidpdx 02:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Nonsense! Don't call me sockpuppet. All of my edits and reverts were in good faith. SamuelSpade 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of your edits have been to add DOM content when other users do not want the content in question. When a new editor appears out of the blue and takes sides in a controversial edit, we assume the editor is a sockpuppet; even if it is a separate person, it is still considered a sockpuppet. Samboy 06:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said on the DOM page, all we ask is that you follow the rules of consensus. The truth is your didn't have consensus, yet you still reverted articles. That is not good faith. If you agree to follow the rules, there is no arbitration and the pressures off. The ball is in your court. Davidpdx 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing During Arbitration

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

If either Dominion of Melchizedek, Solkope or Bokak Atoll are edited again, I will ask for a TRO and/or page protect against editing. Honestly, I shouldn't have to do this, but if it becomes necessary I will. Davidpdx 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a reminder, the Arbitration case is still yet to be decided. This page has been unprotected by systops, however it is still possible to protect again if it is reverted. Davidpdx 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)