Talk:Solkope

Dispute

Give me a bit of time to find the source for the Solkope land dispute. If anyone is truly concerned about the factuality of this claim I will pull the whole reference to DOM and just leave a location stub in the interim.--Isotope23 13:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the website I found the dispute information on, so in the interest of fairness, I've removed that portion for the time being. Hopefully I'll have more time to find it later. I did tweak the wording because the legality of the lease documents and the ownership of the island by Hiagi Apao are purported by DoM, but have never been conclusively proven. The documents were used as evidence in a crimal case (State v Riogi [2001] FJHC 81), but no ruling was made on the legality of the documents (they were presented as evidence of seditious intent by the defendant and the legal claims of ownership were in no way considered in this case). I write this because I'm already seeing the potential for a POV edit war where anon IP's try to introduce POV text into this article. If this starts turning into an edit war I will request an edit lock on this article.--Isotope23 14:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen: Until there is agreement on which text to use, it might be better to remove the strong bias about Melchizedek. The following text has been suggested for the opening paragraph instead of the one currently in use in the article about Melchizedek. "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a micronation ostensibly aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood. It is known for having licensed banks that fraudulently [1] operated in many parts of the world. One of its founders, Tzemach Ben David Netzer Korem, was involved in the attempted secession of the Fijian island of Rotuma."

One of the reasons for this change is that the frauds have only been linked to the banks licensed by Melchizedek and not direclty to Melchizedek. For those that want to make sure that Melchizedek is connected to fraud they still have it in this less biased version. KAJ 16:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about removing DOM completely instead? That is even a better idea Davidpdx 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus to keep mention of DOM, so the only concern now is to remove the bias. If we remove DOM, someone is sure to return it, so it seems best to get this settled now with the help of Isotope23. He seems to be unbiased and I think it best if we try to accept his help. KAJ 19:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pulling the DoM text since this is obviously a "Resevoir Dogs" situation where nobody is willing to back down or compromise. I actually think this is something of a cop out, and I must express my disappointment in both sides for not making a better effort towards a compromise, but after trying to reach consensus between two opposing sides on wording, I'm giving this up as hopeless and at least pulling it might avoid an edit war.--Isotope23 00:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Isotope23, actually this means that you caved into Davidpdx's request instead of giving both sides a chance. Reading stuff over at Davidpdx's talk page and yours, I feel that KAJ agreed to let you use the word "purport" and although he suggested that it be used in a different context, he didn't demand it. On the contrary, Davidpdx seems to want it his way, or no way. After you showed him logical wikipedian reason not to label DOM in the Solkope article, he wouldn't back down.Sincerely,Johnski 06:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again Johnski, this is NOT true. Your continued dishonesty is working against you. According to the history Grutness made one edit, which was a MINOR edit (as indicated by the bold M next to the edit summary). There is nothing to show that she had anything else to do with this article as an editor or as an administrator. Davidpdx 08:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that she kept the DOM content, that she editied and that she is an administrator, and notice that I didn't say she added it. So what if it was only a minor edit. BTW Grutness lives a lost closer to Solkope than you do. Why do you keep misrepresenting what I write? How can you say that this is dishonest? That works against you, not me. You yourself put back the DOM content but don't have the spine to leave it there, because Samboy questioned your doing that. Why don't you stick to what you did, especially after what you put Isotope23 and KAJ through? Sincerely, Johnski 08:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point is an editor can come in and change a document (as did someone in the case of the DOM article) to fix grammatical errors or reword a sentence to make it sound better. That DOESN'T mean they endorse or change the content of the article. This is the case in terms of the edit you are talking about. You are misrepresenting the situation implying Grutness endorsed the article. She did nothing of the sort. In fact, she didn't even leave a comment on the talk page.

Why don't you just own up to the fact and admit it. This is one of many reasons why you have an arbitration case against you. It's not just me who won't work with you, several others have complained about you as well. However, you continually point the finger at me alone, which is just another misrepresentation of the truth Davidpdx 11:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Davidpdx, Please show me where I said she "endorsed" the article. I only said she kept the content in her edit. I didn't say she endorsed it, so there you go again making false statements about me. The fact is that I didn't start this article, and as you know, I haven't been the only one that has thought the DOM content belongs here. P.S. Please stop your wikilante behavior. Johnski 08:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

In case anyone cares...

MacGregor recorded legend [2]
State v Riogi [2001] FJHC 81 [3]
Copy of the documents purporting a lease on Solkope [4]

AFD debate link

This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing During Arbitration

Since arbitration is going forward, no one should be editing this article. Everyone involved should be 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 13:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has agreed to hear the case in terms of the editing of the following articles Dominion of Melchizedek, Solkope, Bokak Atoll and other related articles. Thus far, as agreed everyone has abided by a voluntary truce until the arbitration case is finished. If you are not willing to go along with this truce, we will ask for this page to be protected and/or a TRO against editing this content. In addition, this will just provide more proof that you are not willing to act in good faith. As I said, it's your choice. Davidpdx 06:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • page moves • 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. Davidpdx 13:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful if you actually link the decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision, so people don't just have to take your word for it.--Isotope23 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit wars between Davidpdx & Mattbray

David I have reverted your edit. Please actually read edits before you choose to delete them - Your obvious bias against DOM meant you failed to read my wholly unbiased edits to the Solkope page which clearly and concisely explain the situation in relation to DOM and Rotuma without making a case for either point of view.

Irrespective of where you may personally stand, I am a Rotuman and have an intimate knowledge of the case and the history, and frankly the DOM dispute is the only thing worth mentioning in relation to that sandbank which frankly other would not deserve an article unto itself. Certainly the myth of the tupua' leptafeke (a misreported one at that) does not warrant a place on this page.

I hope I don't come across as offensive here but please understand, feel free to wage your war on the nonsense spouted by the DOM, but do not sacrifice the truth in your personal vendetta. The DOM did claim Solkope: my article says nothing to the contrary and nothing of a bias supporting their claim either.

--Mattbray 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David I humbly beseech that you desist from these needless editing of my work on Solkope. My statement about the ABSENCE of DOM on Rotuma couldn't be further from DOM propaganda. I sense that you have some sort of automated editor that seeks to undo ANY edits to solkope NOT MADE BY YOU! Please refrain from further insults to my work unless you're willing to back up your insinuations about bias on my behalf Thanks --Mattbray 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, I have reverted your edit. I have also have a record of your IP address as 124.176.43.199 making similar edits not logged in under your alias which puts you in Australia [5]. Per the prior ruling of the Arbitration Committee, I will report any and all alledged activity appearing to be sockpuppets of User:Johnski. Davidpdx (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David I fear you suspicion is most unfounded. Please read my edits and the above comments to you before passing judgment on what I've written. Nothing I've written on Solkope has any DOM bias. People who called themselves DOM went to Rotuma and tricked a lot of people, before being found out for what they were and ejected from the island. That actually happened and it deserves to be reported on the page. --Mattbray 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David I want to discuss this maturely. Its clear you've paid no direct attention to my work because then perhaps you would have noticed my edits pertain not only to DOM but also to the geographic nature of Solkope which is pertinent,unbiased and could certainly be left. I'm not interested in a petty editing war: read my edits and you will see the sense in them. Look at my contribution history! I've been a wikipedian for a while and have many diverse interests outside those of DOM, making your case for me being a sockpuppet a lot less plausible. --Mattbray 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Compromise Edits

I am more then willing to go along with the changes Gene Poole has made as they remove the DoM bias from the article. At the same time I am very skeptical it will stand. Davidpdx (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hi, an editor has posted a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. Please identify the parties in disagreement and summarize the issuse for me below, but please don't rebutt the statements of the other yet. Let me just get a handle on the issue(s) first. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at WP:3O and did not see anything posted for a third opinion. Maybe I'm looking in the right place, but if this has indeed been done, please point where it is. In terms of the dispute, since nothing has been done after User:Gene_Poole's edits, I think the problem has been taken care of. Davidpdx (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, we erase the request from the list at 3O when one of us replies to the request. This is an informal process which does not specifically require participation from the editors involved in the dispute, but I like to get both sides of the issue before delving in. Any suggestions I make will only be my opinion as a volunteer and will not be binding on you or the article. This is just a process to help break stalemetaes in the process. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kevin and thanks for your offer. I posted the request for a third opinion when Davidpdx and I were indeed at a stalemate, which has subsequently been broken through concession and an informal third party opinion. I think this issue has sorted itself out. --Mattbray 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see it all worked out. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]