Case Opened on 18:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:52, August 21, 2005 (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 suggestions for a proposed decision at /Workshop. After development of a proposed decision provisions of it will be voted on at /Proposed decision. Motions by parties may be made and comments added by both the parties and others to suggestions and analysis at /Workshop

Involved parties

Statement by Onlytofind

Emico's contributions are personally biased opinions, extremely favorable towards the Iglesia ni Cristo and anyone associated with it, while he forces unfavorable edits to any organization opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, such as The bereans (sic). He also becomes vocal and abusive when an INC-related article is not completely favorable to either the Church, or one of the Manalo family members who administer it, and insists that all information about the INC must come from sources disseminated by the Iglesia ni Cristo and if not, that "The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation." which shows blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules and the NPOV. I am a former member of the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect, who has been contributing information about that organization, and about its administrators, Erano Manalo, Felix Manalo and Eduardo Manalo.I have contributed information favorable and non-favorable about the organization and Emico has consistently made personal attacks against me, calling me "gollum," "satan" and "loser" as well as accusing me of having a vendetta against the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I do not. He has insulted and baited me as well as the three other users on numerous occasions for the past month, and tries to fabricate accusations about me, claiming that I am involved in a religion opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I am not, and have consistently stated so. He has also claimed that Raygirvan,LBMixPro,DJ_Clayworth and I are the exact same person, a member of the Philippine Bereans who wants to get revenge on him (paraphrasing his words) which makes no sense. I exchanged personal insults with him on a few occasions due to his incessant baiting, but in good faith and in an attempt to solve this dispute, I apologized and pledged to stop exchanging insults on my part, in hopes that he would stop his baiting and insults, but he has taken to consistently bold one of my previous comments on the Talk:Erano G. Manalo page in hopes of trying to bait me once again. When I left the arbitration notice on his userpage, he has once again tried to bait me by saying "Please make this your last post on my talk page." I believe that the other three users and I have tried in good faith to work with Emico, but unfortunately, Emico still insists on playing by "his rules" and wants everyone else to play by them too. He has also been accused of impersonating[1] a blogger who writes articles critical of the INC and has tried to attain the identities [2] of the administrators of INC-related forums elsewhere on the Internet, which leads me to believe that he is not interested in constructively contributing to the Wikipedia, but wants to spread his own personal opinions and by seeking the identities of known INC critics, I'm afraid he might, and I place emphasis on might, do something to them. On June 15, 2005, I read a statement from Emico on DJ Clayworth's talk page, "there was a section in Creationism about why creationists are idiots (which they are, but still should be NPOV)." He's starting flames once again.

Emico tried baiting me after this on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo page. I think I can rest my case that Emico wants to push his theocratic, pro-Iglesia ni Cristo, and anti-Trinitarian agenda on the Wikipedia and, I restate my suggestion that Emico and all associated IP addresses be permanently banned. (Edited for brevity)

He has started it again, with a post dated 10 June 2005 on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#GEM page where he accused me of being a Berean once again. Now, he has started again, on 13 June 2005 with a racist statement "All foreign missionaries are bigots" and that I'm trying to manipulate the system, when I tried to reason with Glenn Cessor, another INC apologist. I would also like to point out that I did not write the claim of Eduardo Manalo taking part in EDSA, I only reverted the article to its previous state after Emico edited it, because I have never seen him edit in a way consistent with NPOV.

Glenn Cessor, is an INC apologist who has consistently stated his intention to have the article written to "his standards" and has quoted any source critical of the INC as "...trying to deceive us before God." I completely question his neutrality in this matter, and his intentions toward this article, as well as if he is taking Emico's side only due to the fact that they are both members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. He has also used statements which imply insult against myself, and other religions which he disagrees with, and has claimed that all users who disagree with him and try to protect the Wikipedia rules are the same person through his inflammatory and baiting statement "It's funny how these 'new users' are appearing, how familiar their writing styles are..." I have taken his bait in the past and have exchanged insults with him as well, but I apologized a few weeks ago, on more than one separate occasion while he has not.

Even though, he has hypocritically tried to make light of my insults while I have told him to stop his baiting and inflammatory statements, which have started once again around Sunday, to no avail, not to mention the fact that he has never told Emico the same, even though he flagrantly violates the rules. I believe that his only aim here at Wikipedia is to turn the Iglesia ni Cristo article into an article consistent with his viewpoint and beliefs, completely disregarding the Wikipedia rules.

Now as of June 26, 2005 they are trying to tagteam against me and use a baiting statement to try and make me angry and say something which might violate Wikipedia rules: Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#Kudos_to_Emico. I also believe that the show of bias between these two is obvious, and upon checking the history of their edits, in my humble opinion, they are trying to push their own views on how this article should be and removing substantial information which they disagree with.

Statement by Lbmixpro

My invlovement originates from a reversion of the Bereans article. While looking through the edit history of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, I noticed an edit summary by Emico which relates to an edit he made to the Bereans. Out of curiosity, I looked into his edit and reverted it, in order to repair what I percieved as damage to the article's structure. He deleted the majority of External links, references and the complete category listings. This edit was also nearing 3RR status. Soon after, Emico sends me a message on my talk page confronting/baiting me to prove my NPOV status about the article. I gave him my reason, but he took it as reverting per request of Onlytofind to get around the 3RR. Soon after, based on his conduct with other wikipedians as well as myself, I planned on issuing an RfC. Throughout this dispute, I've been met with many personal attacks (preferrably "loser"), as well as all people involved. One which caught my attention is an attack at User:DJ_Clayworth. Emico accused him of being a Berean himself. User:Raygirvan tried to intervine and failed. Recently, in an attempt to resolve this issue, I assumed failure to comply to WP:AGF, apologized to Emico if he considered my edit as "reckless" and considered the WP:NPA issue resolved as far as I'm involved. His response was "The arrogance of these people! You don't tell me what to do. You won't tell me that face to face, so why do it here?" At this point, I do not recommend a ban, as his behavior has improved at a reasonable rate. But he's stated that he may continue his previous actions. In the event his conduct worsens in both edit wars and personal attacks, I'll suggest him be restricted from editing religious based articles and talk pages of those invloved in this RfA. In the worst case, to the fullest extent of ArbCom. He needs to know and respect the importance of the 3RR, NPOV, and NPA rules. In the event he gets a one year or longer ban on the articles in question, I'd suggest mentorship for him, the term of his ban.

References: talk:Bereans, talk:Iglesia ni Cristo, User talk:Emico, User talk:Lbmixpro Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico#Evidence of disputed behavior.

I support the statements from DJ_Clayworth, Onlytofind and Raygirvan. To clarify one of Emico's statements here, I did not revert his edit of the Eduardo Manalo article. See the diff between Emico's edit of Onlytofind's and my edit of Emico's thereafter. Onlytofind presented an allegation to the article as fact, Emico deleted it. I presented the information as an allegation. Emico once again deleted it stating the linked reference cannot be verified, since the link is only a summary of the book. I agreed. Onlytofind and Emico have engaged in an edit war since.

Soon after RayGirvan's demise from WP, emico wrote in his talk page "The clique is now severely disabled. It's death will soon follow. --Emico 17:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)", shortly before archiving it. I am not clear on what Emico means, but I have come to an assumption that Emico has intentions of running those involved in this RfA out of WP. I find this quite disturbing. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} June 29, 2005 11:27 (UTC)

Statement by DJ_Clayworth

I encountered Emico first at the Bereans page, to which he had added his own personal assessment of the Phillipine organisation (then the only one mentioned). Since then he insisted on repeatedly adding his own personal (and derogatory) opinion of them, and some theological statements about them which were demonstrably false. At other times he insisted that his own refutation of the Berean's theology be included, theology with which 98% of other Christians agree (but not the INC). I have found him to be invariably insulting when he is disagreed with, though perfectly polite when agred with. I was personally accused of being a "member of the Berean cult". When an outside viewpoint was requested (by me) he accused those who nobly offered their views of 'teaming up' on him. Having been repeatedly challenged to cite sources for his views, he responded by insisting that sources be cited by every single editor for every single word they added to the article. He made anonymous edits to try to get round the Three Revert Rule. He seems to be still insisting that only information approved by that church should be included in the article Iglesia ni Cristo, despite his own attempts to add disparaging information to Bereans.

Some of his problems may be due to unfamiliarity with English. He has very fixed theological ideas, and little idea of which other organisations share them. He has not, to my knowledge, engaged in vandalism for the sake of vandalism. He has also been substantially less disruptive (to my areas of interest) in the last few days. However he needs to understand the value of cooperation and the difference between a fact and an opinion. DJ Clayworth 23:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I did tell Emico that his interaction with me "did not make [Iglesia ni Cristo] seem attractive". Since by then he had already called me a liar and accused me of "propagating lies", "covering up for liars", being "a member of the berean cult" and suggested that I might have sent him a virus, I'm not going to retract that. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Raygirvan

I support the asessement of the situation as described by Onlytofind and Lbmixpro.

I entered this dispute via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for 24 May, "for a dispute over factual accuracy in the page. Outside view requested" on the article Bereans, and pursued it as a consequence of Emico's behaviour in relation to this article (see also Talk:Bereans and the Bereans edit history).

The Bereans article is about a Scottish historical religous sect and a group of modern evangelical churches of the same name. It's now mostly stable. But this was achieved by giving in to Emico's repeated edits to expunge reference to a significant (in my view) Phillipines branch that campaigns against other religions in the Phillippines, including the Iglesia ni Cristo.

Emico has continued to promote, belligerently, edits that appear to come from a religious agenda rather than a NPOV assessment of the available material (for instance, removal of reference to one modern Berean group's stated anti-Catholic stance; to insert superfluous detail about the Trinity, and to remove reference to the historical Bereans' founder's disaffection from the Church of Scotland).

I'm not directly involved with the Iglesia ni Cristo disputes, but a study of the Talk pages suggests Emico's continuing failure to abide by the guidelines for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion or Wikipedia:Cite sources. He doesn't accept the validity of secondary sources such as newspaper accounts, and in the Talk pages of three articles about prominent INC members (see Talk:Felix_Manalo, Talk:Erano_G._Manalo and Talk:Eduardo V. Manalo) has shown a bias toward INC sources by stating that "the absolute authority ... is the subject of the article".

I do support a ban. Emico's bias is unlikely to have changed. The strength of his view is evidenced by his setting up a blog repeating his preferred edit of Bereans, footnoted This was the entry I made at wikipedia.org until it was vandalized by members of the Bereans. RayGirvan 23:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum 21 Jun 2005 (revised version of 15 Jun addendum) I have since become involved in editing the Iglesia ni Cristo page. On this front, hopeful progress has been made toward a concensus with other editors, including those supporting this church.

Emico, however, remains a major problem. The crux of the matter is that he is a believer in this church, and persists in applying a POV stance to make the article solely reflect - against NPOV#Religion - his religious views of the subject.

This includes accusing other users of trolling; behaving as if he is sole arbiter of content of such pages (eg repeatedly putting a Factual Content Dispute tag on the page when he, personally, dislikes an edit - see [3]); and posting bogus reports of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress about edits he dislikes.

He is also currently repeating in Iglesia ni Cristo the behaviour reported above by DJ Clayworth: of demanding source citations for trivial edits by others (professing to be intensely concerned about citation, but providing none for his own) and objecting to well-sourced details of historical context and external description (such as the widespread use of "unitarian" in mainstream reference works). Contrary to his claims, I have provided citations for my own edits: for example, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

He is in addition applying this religious agenda to the nontrinitarianism and Unitarianism articles, deleting Iglesa ni Cristo references (see [9] and [10]) from these useful descriptive categories generally used for the INC by external NPOV sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. RayGirvan 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Emico

In my statement, I'll let their post do the talking:

Onlytofind: When asked to cite sources, he responded with:

In short, you're some deranged INC fanboy who's depressed because he's unable to cover his bias with a cloak of legitimacy. Have a nice day. --Onlytofind 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not rspond to this, but his insults, threats of banning and arbitration continued.

Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Which prompted one poster to say:

Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not respond to his insult.

LBmixpro: When asked why he reverted my edits without explanations, he replied:

I don't know what you are talking about. Nor do I care. I made the revert so that Onlytofind won't get the Bereans article locked

I believed this was getting around wikipedia rules, the same way raygirvan and dj clayworth were doing. After a few post, I believe we settled the dispute. Although I resented their post because I felt they were presenting themselves as Wikipedia authority, when they are not.

Raygirvan and dj clayworth: I questioned why they used the word 'disaffected' when it could not be found in the sources. I pointed out that since this was not in the sources, of even an indication of it, that it is a personal opinion and should be taken out. I believe they were inserting words which cannot be found in the sources provided, and is detrimental to the character of the subject. See exchanges in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bereans#Disaffected]

Dj clayworth's objectivity is suspect. He seems so biased, that if a personal opinion suits him, then to him it is a fact. To cite one example: In one of the talk pages, he asked for the meaning of an acronym. I'm not really sure if he was baiting, or genuinely interested to know. When both I and Onlytofind responded, he copied Onlytofind's post verbatim and added it to the article without verifying facts. We had some post exchanges on the talk pages, and at one point he addressed me and posted this: "... my experience interacting with you does not make this organisation seem attractive.". Please see exchanges in the talk page [here]

If possible, I would also like to know if any of the involved belong to networks 203.176.2.* and 202.176.2.*. During the exchanges, I was sent a virus via email. --Emico 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add here that we are again in a revert war. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are taking turns reverting my edits. I questioned the lack of verifiable source. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are making allegations that the subject of the article was engaged in rebellion, a very serious accusation. --Emico 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Onlytofind started another revert war. The contributors decided to vote to balance links on the article. Onlytofind wanted to get around the decision by adding another link. I suggested to replace one of the current links so as to maintain the balance but he will not negotiate and started insulting me and another user. --Emico 03:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On creationist: I never posted on that article. Please check the poster dates thoroughly.

On foreign missionaries, here's my actual comment:One thing I got from this essay is the fact that foreign missionaries are bigots. --Emico 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC). I was commenting on this account in the essay:"He(Missionary Bruce Kessner) believed that Filipinos were “defective” in “thought power.".

On Onlytofind being a berean: I asked him is religion and got a vague answer. I posted berean in a reply and explain that it was a guess. I asked him again his religion and got no reply.

On Onlytofind manipulating the system and users: Whenever he gets into exchanges that he loses, he baits users into supporting him. He's currently aligning support for an RFC on another user. If you watch the talk pages of the users, you'll see the pattern.

On lbmixpro: He started out explaining the accusation was just an allegation. That was not my point. My point was the link to the source was deficient because it was a booksellers catalog! He obviously did not verify the link. Plus, Onlytofind was making serious allegations of rebellion which he cannot substantiate. lbmixpro did a second look and found this out himself, and agreed with me.

On Raygirvan's accusation of obstructing edits of the Unitarianism page: He added claims that the INC is a biblical unitarian church. I corrected him saying a unitarian is a protestant sect, which the INC is certainly not. He seem to resent being corrected. Note that Raygirvan is one of people who started this arbitration because of exchanges similar to this. --Emico 00:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to Raygirvan addendum: Raygirvan and Onlytofind overun the article with new additions, but did not cite sources. When I asked them for the sources, they would'nt hear of it and complained that I was obstructing them. Because I could not verify their addition, I added the dispute tag and a cite sources section in the talk page asking them to provide a source for a specific item. After much complaining and reverting, they removed the item. I am guessing that they do not have a source and have fabricated the statement they added to the article. It is events like this that I am moved to question their contributions. I have a suspicion that they are pushing an agenda. I am asking them for source on the rest of their additions. --Emico 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning trolling, here are the post that I did not respond to:

Look at the statements that Glenn and Emico have made, claiming foolishly ... The hypocrisy of the INC members ... with theirbias! --Onlytofind 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You(gcessor) lie, insult (yes, I said it) and manipulate this article to your own blatantly biased POV. You're a hypocrite, pure and simple. (sniff) .--Onlytofind 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emico graciously used some of his precious time to vandalize this article once again, (sniff)--Onlytofind 04:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You(emico) can run from the truth, but you can't hide the fact that you're guilty of bias and hypocrisy. Onlytofind 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And raygirvan, after I asked to cite sources said:And I add: we are not obliged to treat Emico as arbiter of content here. Any factual doubts (and I agree that there are some) are the province of all editors here, and I trust Glenn and Ealva far more. RayGirvan 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement By Glenn Cessor

Before you make any rulings, please consider these: Carefully read the Iglesia ni Cristo talk page, and you will see that Onlytofind throws insults around as readily as anyone else...and accuses others of insulting him at every turn. For instance, look on the Iglesia ni Cristo's talk page section "Discussion forums" wherein he says that I "have to insult every INC detractor". I have challenged him to back that up with proof (Onlytofind has access to hundreds of my posts on two forums), but has yet to present any. Furthermore, look at my comments that I've made on the Wikipedia to see if I've even insulted anyone ONCE. Rebuked, yes. Insulted NO. Yet, if you listen to Onlytofind, I insult EVERY INC detractor...and then he continues to insult as he will.

Furthermore, we're in the process of an edit war on the Iglesia ni Cristo site. Onlytofind lost a previous vote on the number of 'con' sites allowed versus the number of 'pro' sites allowed, and he has since decided that an article published by an Ann Harper, whose article has the stated purpose of helping Evangelicals be more effective in missionizing - drawing people away from - the Iglesia ni Cristo. The language she uses is obviously 'con' INC, but Onlytofind insists on having the link in the "Other INC-related links" instead of the 'con' section where it belongs. This is obviously an attempt to bypass the already agreed-upon limit of three 'con' sites.

What's the point? You have an accusation by Onlytofind - but consider Onlytofind's actions as well. I can't speak of the matter concerning the Bereans' page, but when it comes to him accusing anyone of insults, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black (and he still has a long way to go proving that I've insulted anyone). Please bear this in mind in your decisions.--gcessor 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept Fred Bauder 21:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Ambi 22:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although I can't really make sense of what's going on, I can tell there's something horribly wrong going on here, so accept. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:06, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

No personal attacks

1) It is not acceptable to make personal attacks on other users, Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Passed 4-0

Original research

2) Information used in Wikipedia articles should have its source in a reputable reference, not personal experience, Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Original research

Passed 4-0

NPOV

3) While consensus is important in making decisions with respect to editing, it does not trump Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, NPOV, see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In the instant case a vote which occurred several months ago among one group of editors does not continue to control indefinitely as the editors change, especially if it would result in exclusion of important information representing an important point of view. Repeated arguing about such a vote as a controlling precedent is an example of Wikilawyering.

Passed 4-0

Deletion of significant information

3.1} Removal of well-referenced relevant material from an article is not acceptable.

Passed 4-0

Findings of Fact

Locus of dispute

1) Complaint is regarding Emico (talk · contribs) and his editing and interactions regarding Iglesia ni Cristo and related articles. The complaint was made by Onlytofind (talk · contribs), Lbmixpro (talk · contribs), DJ_Clayworth (talk · contribs) and Raygirvan (talk · contribs). Gcessor (talk · contribs) complains regarding Onlytofind. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico.

Passed 4-0

Iglesia ni Cristo

1.1) Iglesia ni Cristo is a Philippines based church which has strong advocates both pro and con. While it is a distant second to the Roman Catholic Church in membership, it plays an important role in the Philippines, including politics. Most of the editors are involved or have been involved with the church. The church does not have an Web presence and what literature exists regarding the church is out of print or difficult to access as well as heavily biased as most other Christians regard Iglesia ni Cristo as a cult. Thus there is a paucity of available reference material which takes the point of view of the church, and available material may be both biased and inaccurate. Due to lack of readily available reference material Wikipedia editors have frequently drawn from their own experience in adding information to the article. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Emico/Workshop#References_regarding_Iglesia_ni_Cristo.

Passed 4-0

Bereans

1.2) To the extent they are relevant the Bereans are a Philippines based ministry which targets "cults," including Iglesia ni Cristo. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Emico/Workshop#Acts_17:11.

Passed 4-0

Personal attacks by Onlytofind

2. Onlytofind (talk · contribs), one of the major editors of Iglesia ni Cristo, has directed a number of personal attacks at editors who support the church, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Emico/Workshop#Personal_attacks.

Passed 4-0

Personal attacks by Emico

2. Emico (talk · contribs) has directed a small number of personal attacks at editors who ~~support~~ oppose the church, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Emico/Workshop#Personal_attacks.

Passed 4-0

Removal of information by Emico

2. Emico (talk · contribs), a supporter of the church, in addition to correctly pointing out that some information is not adequately sourced, for example, endorsement of US political candidates, has, while engaging in Wikilawyering, repeatedly removed well sourced information unfavorable to the church: Emico removed detailed information with the comment "Much better. non POV" [11]. 24.16.167.121 (talk · contribs) deletes link to Harper article, and Category New religions [12]. Restored, anon removes it again [13]. Restored, Emico removes it repeatedly [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Raygirvan removes another "con" link to make room for Harper article [20]. Grace Note (talk · contribs) restores [21]. Emico deletes [22] [23]. The vote Emico refers to is at Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo/archive053005#Con_link_removal_vote_.28Closed.29, but does not represent consensus of current editors although most continue to refer to it as a guiding principle.

Passed 4-0

Remedies

Onlytofind placed on personal attack parole

1) Onlytofind is placed on personal attack parole for one year.

Passed 4-0

Onlytofind banned for one week

1.1) Onlytofind is banned from Wikipedia for one week due to repeated personal attacks.

Passed 4-0

Emico placed on personal attack parole

2} Emico is placed on personal attack parole for three months.

Passed 4-0

Emico banned for one day

2.1) Emico is banned from Wikipedia for one day due to repeated personal attacks.

Passed 4-0

Emico banned from certain articles

3) Emico is banned from the articles Iglesia ni Cristo, Bereans, Erano Manalo, Felix Manalo and Eduardo Manalo for one year.

Passed 4-0

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

A listing of suspected sockpuppet accounts is at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Emico. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 13:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A series of anonymous IP edits to the Iglesia ni Cristo article with a viewpoint and writing style very similar to Emico's started on 14 Sep 2005 with the last being on 15 Sep 2005. Almost all text added was unobjective and had to be reverted. Emico has already had a reputation for using sockpuppet accounts and right now, it seems very likely that he is behind the latest round of page vandalism.--Ironbrew 01:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

80.58.4.46 (talk • contribs), an abusive proxy address, has edited the INC article by adding obvious PPOV statements about INC members, as well as other edits similar to recent sockpuppet accounts. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 13:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

194.143.190.8 (talk · contribs), has recently made many substantial edits to the Iglesia ni Cristo article. Each counter-edit or revert has rapidly been reverted back to his version. TheoClarke (talk · contribs) is an sysop who's been handing Emico's situation for a while, but has not been around to deal with the latest outbreak. I also believe this person may be the same person as 72.25.91.250 (talk · contribs) who's only notable edit is a post at Emico's talk page, asking Emico to check an email he sent. Please do whatever it takes to bring this article back in control. --08:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ironbrew admits he is User:Onlytofind; [24] (He has since served his editing restriction)

I seriously believe IheartWWF (talk · contribs) is a very abusive sockpuppet of Emico (talk · contribs). His edits began as an anonymous user(213.55.89.8 (talk · contribs), 168.243.84.113 (talk · contribs), and 168.243.84.113 (talk · contribs)) who has aggressively edited the INC article. Based on his posts, he has knowlege of how WP works. Lately he's taken his animosity and cockyness to my talk page with insults about other articles I edit. He also bashed me and some Wikipedia:Esperanza members. This would be a violation of his Personal Attack Parole. --LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 06:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On December 24, 2005, I've blocked User:Ironbrew for 48 hours due to personal attacks. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!>

I've blocked 202.69.192.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as an open proxy. This IP and others have edited the article in a similar manner as Emico, as well showing the same incivility toward others. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef-blocked IndependentMind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on his edit pattern of extreme POV edits to the INC article, and a post to my talk page relating to the Bereans. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrBigT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indef blocked as an attack username for personally attacking me after having the INC article semi protected. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy anons of have been very disruptive at Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo since the semi protection. I had to proxy block about 3 of them so far. In response I've semi protected the talk page and reported it to the admin's noticeboard for review. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked BreathFresh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an Emico sleeper account based on the fact that his first edit occured five days from today, was only to the INC article and was a blanket revert of Ironbrew. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightdarkness blocked LaraWagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Emico. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 02:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have continuosly blocked sockuppets and sleeper accounts of Emico, as well as posted a description of his actions at WP:LTA. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|^o ^n|it!> 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]