Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 03:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Pages: Dominion of Melchizedek, Bokak Atoll, Solkope, etc.

Involved parties

Complainants:

Against:

Brief summary: On going vandalism with pages associated with Dominion of Melchizedek by user Johnski and his sockpuppets. This has been going on for over four months.

Statement by User:Davidpdx (on behalf of all complainants)[edit]

There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the article Dominion of Melchizedek, 60+ times in the last two months. Johnski has been reverting these pages without consensus for over four months.

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

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

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

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

The specific allegations being made are as follows:

Allegation #1: Adding statements that are POV without providing proof in terms of his claims and deleting claims he disagrees with and making dishonest statements. In terms of area (size of the country), Johnski makes the assertion that DOM claims the entire earth, while not providing evidence of this claim. [2] When he edits the page, he is careful to remove any criticisms of DOM and/or change statements to minimize frauds that have been committed by the people involved. [3]

Allegation #2: Reverting Dominion of Melchizedek, Bokak Atoll and other articles without consensus. [4]

Allegation #3: Inability to show good faith and follow the rules of Wikipedia. Posts information on talk page, then proceeds to revert the page and leaves the following message, “refer to talk page and before reverting see if you can't find something you can keep in your next revision.” [5] Johnski has made many statements about Wikipedia rules which are false and misleading. He also has made assertions that seven to ten people support his version of the article. [6]

Allegation #4: Misquoting sources to push POV edits. [7] Misquoting Washington Post Article, Johnski claimed it said “dubious” when the article claimed DOM was in fact a “ruse.” [8] Misquoting the United States U.S. Comptroller of the Currency claiming that because a document refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" and make it appear that the US is giving defacto recongniztion, when that is clearly not the case.

Allegation #5: Harassment-Mainly 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. [9] User:Sjakkalle stated in the edit summary that the page, (that the article was) "Recreated after speedy deletion, created by a disgruntled user.” Davidpdx 22:49, November 13, 2005

I would like to restate again, my allegation in terms of sockpuppets being used. So far, one user name has been blocked. I am working to try to find out any details why, but I would appreciate it if the arbitration committee would look into this, instead of mearly discarding the possiblity of this being true.
For the record, I am not the "ringleader" of this group, which implies I'm putting pressure on other people to come forward. There are many other people that have a problem with the editing done by Johnski other then myself. Johnski would like you to believe that it is purely a matter between him and I, but this isn't true. Davidpdx 04:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Samboy[edit]

The issues I see here is that

  • A single editor is trying to impose his changes on articles against the wishes against multiple other editors.
  • This editor is using sockpuppets as part of his effort to make these changes

As per point one, he keeps trying to add Dominion of Melchizedek content to a number of articles about geographic locations whose only relation to DOM is the fact that DOM has claimed that they own the land in question. Here are some recent edits in just one article: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17].

The user is also being dishonest; he is using multiple accounts. You can see above the three different accounts making the exact same DOM- related changes: User:Johnski, User:KAJ, and User:SamuelSpade. You can see that these accounts have, by and large, have only made a relatively small number of edits, almost all DOM related: Jonski contributions KAJ contributions SamuelSpade contributions. In particular, in all cases, the first edit for these accounts was DOM-related. This is a clear case of using sockpuppet accounts.

When a single editor goes against the wishes of multiple other editors, and uses sockpuppets towards this end, disclipinary action becomes necessary. Samboy 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Gene Poole[edit]

I believe that Johnski is using multiple accounts to give the appearance that more than one editor supports his actions in adding heavily pro-"Melchizedek" spin to as many artticles as he can possibly find in Wikipedia that have the slightest tangential relationship to what is in reality a micronation entity that has been widely condemned for being used as a vehicle for the conduct of criminal activities throughout the world.

It is telling that Johnski, SamuelSpade, KAJ and the various other anonymous IPs who have edited in favour of "Melchizededk" focus wholly and solely on the exact same group of articles, from their first edit, and appear to edit in sustained bursts of activity. None of these editors have made any other substantive contribution to Wikipedia beyond their edits to "Melchizedek"-related articles.

It is my personal belief that Johnski is probably the current "president" of Melchizedek, as he has a familiarity with this subject, and with the minutiae of court cases and other legal proceedings and historic events that no outsider would (a) be aware of, and (b) be so obsessively interested in. While his involvement in Melchizedek does not preclude him from contributing to this article, he has consistently failed to conform with the principles of evidence, NPOV and good faith - particularly in repeatedly trying to "spin" negative statements into positive ones by selectively misquoting media reports critical of "Melchizedek".

In doing so he has, in my opinion, forfeited the right to further participation in the Wikipedia community. --Gene_poole 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Gene_poole may be using multiple accounts as it has been pointed out that he has responded to messages to Centauri in the first person. Also, Shocktm may be another of his sock-puppets to give the appearance that more than one editor supports his actions in twisting facts about the Melchizedek story. He is known to be a part of a different micronation that hasn't achieved the same level of recognition as DOM, so he may be jealous of DOM since it was able to gain recognition while having tons of negative press against it. One most recent example is his refusal to stop mis-characterizing a Washington Post article changing the meaning from "you get the feeling" to "probably". Even when others in his group finally saw the need for correcting the reference, he refuses on the basis that it is easier reading. Who cares about misrepresenting the WP article if it is easier reading? seems his attitude.
I can't speak for others, but the article cries out for attention, and others since the arbitration was brought have noticed the same.
Gene's belief is not true, I am not the "president" of Melchizedek, as my only familiarity with this subject, and with court cases and other legal proceedings and historic events are all published, and it is Gene that isn't conforming to the principles of evidence, NPOV and good faith - particularly in repeatedly trying to "spin" negative statements into more negative ones by selectively misquoting media reports critical of "Melchizedek", and by removing valid quotes from U.S. government web sites. You would think that my bringing stuff to their attention previously unknown to them would get their respect. But knowing more than they know about the subject makes them better qualified to keep and guard the article only as they see fit.
While I don't think Gene has forfeited his right to participation in the Wikipedia community, he needs someone with authority here to help him understand that Wikipedian articles should quote sources correctly, and that articles need to be fair and balanced. Perhaps Gene is the real ringleader here, not Davidpdx, and Davidpx has only been an unwitting tool of Gene. Sincerely, Johnski 07:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out my comments were removed by one of the arbitration committee and I was told not to comment on others statements. I would hope this is treated the same. (yes and remove this comment too that's ok with me). Davidpdx 14:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind if Johnski's rant above is retained or removed. Apart from its general entertainment value it's also a pretty good illustration of precisely why he's about to become the subject of arbitartion. --Gene_poole 05:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So now, I'm the "unwitting tool" and Gene is the ringleader? Make up your mind why don't you? It's funny, because you have no idea what your talking about. As Gene so elequently put it, you are clueless and that is exactly why your being taken to arbitration. Davidpdx 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jdavidb[edit]

Samboy effectively speaks for me; his summary of this situation is the best, I think.

WP:SOCK states "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." Sockpuppetry per se is not at all a big deal to me, and in fact in the past I've been one to push on other disputes for less attention to be given to that in favor of other charges. In this case, though, whether we are dealing with sockpuppets or meatpuppets, it's clear we are looking at "single-purpose account"s. This has made it impossible to try to push for real consensus to be built on what these articles should or should not say, since all these new single-purpose accounts try to involve themselves in the consensus.

Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dejvid[edit]

My main problem with Jonski et al is the way he uses references. Take the Washington Post article. He tried to claim to me that the Washington Post was saying that it was DOMs declaration of war against France. However the tittle of the article was "The Ruse that Roared." ie a clear reference to the miniscule state of the film not to the act of declaring war. After a few times of checking someones refs and finding they are putting a spin which contradicts the original you lose confidence with any edit he makes.Dejvid 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C[edit]

This was months ago for me, but what from I well recall, there was/is (an) editor(s) maintaining their interests in the DoM was wholly incidental, but that nonetheless resulted in disrupting Wikipedia by consistently adding pro-DoM material (both diminishing criticisms and heightening positive claims) into a number of articles. This seems to be continuing as we speak, and likely will resume throughout this arbitration case unless an injunction is issued, which I recommend. Here's a discussion from Antarctica I find illustrative (note the ubiquitous WP reference):

Quoting from Washington Post article about Melchisedek:

"Melchizidek has leaders, laws, religion, a flag, a disputed homeland and an unreasonable territorial claim -- the textbook definition of your basic nation-state. Who's to say it's phony?" Unsigned by 68.121.47.161

En.wikipedia.org does; this isn't the article to contest its status. El_C 02:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A resolution to this disruption on the part of quite a few accounts (and quite possibly the coordinated effort of a few individuals) is long overdue. El_C 02:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnski[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Hello Kelly Martin, if you could help edit this article taking into consideration mine and others efforts to reduce the bias, and bring more balance, that could end the edit war.

I'll borrow from what I read on another subject as it says it better than I could write myself:

Davidpdx, their ringleader, has not made any contribution to any topic regarding this subject, other than Solkope. As soon as Samboy challenged him for that, he removed the content that Isotope23, KAJ and himself worked hard to reach consensus on. In some instances they have continued their POV approach on DOM to the detriment of other pages too. In essense, they have acted as POV warriors with a single viewpoint who have proven unable or uninterested in the wiki approach or policies, and have little interest in anything beyond their own view. (eg, only show negative aspects of Dominion of Melchizedek, and ignore anything else the press or governemnt web sites have put forth. Fundamentally they do not seem to show the slightest ability or care for collaborating in a wiki manner. Indeed their idea of collaboration is insults and ignoring or dismissal of issues, often with personal attacks and remarks.

Here are some problems encountered:

  • factual suppression
  • Repeated deletion of sourced material or cited fact about the subject by reputable authors, government web sites, often followed by addition of more POV material.
  • Personal attacks
  • Ignoring of requests to discuss edits
  • Changing the words "you get the feeling" to "probably" when quoting the Washington Post, as one example.

When Davidpdx was first given the idea for mediation he took it as a threat, and was told that arbitration would be necessary if he didn't accept mediation. Finally he grabbed the ball and ran with it.

I've only used one of the IP addresses Davidpdx listed above, and I have no sockpuppets. I've offered to disclose my IP address, if he first agrees to disclose his after I disclose mine, but he will not comply. Made the same offer to a few others listed above. None have accepted.

I am not a Melchizedekian nor am I a member of the Pedley family. I am a Christian Scientist. I know that Jdavidb is at odds with my faith. The only thing I've been asking for is that the article become fair, balanced and factual. I've backed up every fact, and only tried to quote exactly from articles, government web sites, but that is not permitted by Davidpdx.

I created the article Wikilante as a sincere attempt to describe the vigilante behavior of Davidpdx, and told him that I'm sorry if he thought I was taunting him, and paid him a compliment for his efforts since he apparently is sincere as are vigilantes. I didn't try to create that article again after I realized that an administrator had deleted it a second time, and didn't know it was blocked.

Davidpdx claims that I didn't show anywhere that DOM claims earth, which shows he doesn't read my talk as I had just posted a link to the CBS article that stated that Melchizedek unofficially claims the entire earth, and claims Jerusalem as its homeland. Please take a look and see for yourself.

I tried hard to work for compromise with Davidpdx but it turned out he was only playing games with me, and had no such intention, which is evidenced from his lack of making any compromise on the main DOM article, but only finding reason not to compromise, having nothing to do with the facts, but only having to do with issues of my not following his idea of the rules, my being stupid, and being on LSD. I've never used LSD and although a slow learner, I doubt that I am stupid. And I have tried my best to follow the wiki rules as I slowly learn those rules.

I'm happy to get into all of the details of the efforts for a better article, but you can easily figure it out by looking at my last version compared to the one before it, and taking a look at the last talk page on DOM as of this date. Sincerely, Johnski 20:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from below section --[[Sam Korn]] 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by User:Spadesam[edit]

I am NOT anybody's sock, meat puppet, am NOT part of any organizational push. Only have seen needfor creating a better article. I changed my name three times, first it was Samspade, then SamuelSpade and now it should stay Spadesam. Spadesam 03:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser lookups[edit]

The IPs are widely geographically disparate. In most cases, one of the usernames uses just one or two of the IPs. (I'll mark these later.) I don't think it's all one person; the pattern is similar to that of agents of an organisation acting together, but I'd need to look closely at the editing style before saying it looks like that. More as I work out what on earth is going on here - David Gerard 11:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of fairness, you might want to check to see if there is any sockpuppetry from Davidpdx's side of this arbitration request, because I remember reading somewhere that Centauri is a sock-puppet of Gene_polle. Johnski 22:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/1/0/0)[edit]

  • Accept to deal with edit warring. (But tread carefully on the sockpuppet claims; on preliminary investigation they do not check out.) Kelly Martin (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject - whack them (all the sockpuppets/IPs except Johnski). No need for an arbcom case. If he (Johnski) won't behave, then whack him too. (For the record, I checked on the sockpuppeting allegations above and while I cannot confirm all of the above suspicions, it does look like sockpuppeting is going on) →Raul654 05:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not quite sure it's sockpuppetry per se - looks like it might be meatpuppets in the form of an organisational push. I'll get back to you all on this one - David Gerard 11:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Fred Bauder 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept — looks like meat rather than socks ➥the Epopt 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Dmcdevit·t 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles Matthews 09:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Personal projects[edit]

1) Analogous to Wikipedia:Autobiography, the editing of an article involving one's personal project, business, website, webcomic, or micronation may result in disruption of the article, and in extreme cases, in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing.

Passed 8-0

Unblockable users[edit]

2) It is impossible for practical purposes to block certain users.

Passed 8-0

Findings of fact[edit]

Focus of dispute[edit]

1) The focus of this dispute is edit warring and POV editing of Dominion of Melchizedek and related articles. The edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing by Johnski and a host of apparent associates.

Passed 8-0

Johnski[edit]

2) Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Wikipedia.

Passed 8-0

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Dominion of Melchizedek semi-protected[edit]

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

Passed 7-0


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski&oldid=431106750"