This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies please place proposed items you have confidence in on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Emico/Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Controversy

1.1) Iglesia ni Cristo is a Philippines based church which has strong advocates both pro and con. The Wikipedia editors on the talk page sometimes discuss internet forums which they are familiar with and seem to have participated in, see http://www.network54.com/Forum/70213 http://www.network54.com/Forum/84590 and the now deleted http://www.network54.com/Forum/70210 There is also reference to The Bereans, a Phillipines based anti-cult website which considers Iglesia ni Cristo to be a cult [1]. See edit by Emico [2]. The Bereans Iglesia ni Cristo forum, particularly this tread.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Lbmixpro

2) Lbmixpro (talk · contribs) complains of the following edits by Emico (talk · contribs): [3] which seems unexeptional except for the snide editorial comment, "Wonder why this guy is suddenly nice? Could it be my Berean article?." [4] which seems to accuse DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs) of being a member of a Berean sect in the Phillipines. The next edit [5] is a restoration to Bereans of material reverted by Emico with this edit [6]. Emico quiries Lbmixpro about his restoration emphasizing the trinity [7], see also [8] where belief by protestants in the trinity is emphasized. Emico complains of tag-team reverting, while making a mild personal attack [9]. Lbmixpro responds, citing [[WP:NPA|Get over yourself.]] defending tag team reverting [10]. Emico continues to complain about tag team reverting [11]. Lbmixpro brushes him off [12]. Lbmixpro defends himself and threatens Emico with an Arbitration proceeding [13]. Lbmixpro tries to explain himself [14]. Emico then makes a very aggressive edit at Talk:Bereans [15]. Emico in a post betraying emotional upset again raises the sockpuppet hypothesis [16]. Emico charges collusion [17]. Lxmixpro expresses his grievances and continues to threaten arbitration [18]. Emico admits an unintentional error [19]. Lxmixpro explains his intentions on Talk:Iglesia ni Cristo [20]. Emico defiant [21]. Emico expresses disgust and fear [22].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks

3) By Onlytofind (talk · contribs) [23] , [24], [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. By Emico (talk · contribs) [42] [43], [44], [45]. By 71.32.86.239 (talk · contribs) [46].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would like to point out some more diffs of what I believe are Emico personally attacking other Wikipedians, which are not currently displayed. Whether or not they're actual attacks is up the ArbCom.

[47] - "The arrogance of these people!"
[48] - "Stop making promises you can't keep. gollum."
[49] - "...but I rarely reply to post by juveniles, I think it's a waste of my valuable time."
[50] - "I think it would help if you admit you're a berean."
[51] - "3 losers and a juvenile conspiring and ganging up on me, making threats left and right. did you notice though, that's about all they do."
[52] - "Those know-it-alls"
[53] - "The big cry baby is at it again."
[54] - "The clique is now severely disabled. It's death will soon follow."

--LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 09:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Focus on the Trinity

4) Emico (talk · contribs) focuses in his edits and talk on belief in the Trinity [55]. Apparently belief in the Trinity is seen as a weak point in the beliefs of the Bereans who while focusing on bible-based beliefs continue, as most protestants do, to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, which is arguably not based on Biblical text [56].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

History of Bereans

5) Bereans was created on February 12, 2005 by 203.76.196.236 (talk · contribs) [57], as created it treated only of the apologetics ministry in the Philippines. Emico (talk · contribs) was one of the early editors, focusing on the Ministries representations regarding Iglesia ni Christo [58] [59]. On May 18, 2005 Onlytofind (talk · contribs) blanked the page without comment [60], replacing it with the material in the original article created by 203.76.196.236 [61]. Emico restores his personal research [62]. Lbmixpro (talk · contribs) reverts [63]. Emico revises and restores [64]. DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs) reverts [65]. DJ Clayworth adds information about the ancient Bereans [66]. Emico restores his original research [67]. DJ Clayworth removes short list of groups targeted by the Bereans [68] and replaces it with a general statement [69]. Emico restores specific list [70]. DJ Clayworth reverts [71]. A series of reverts follows, a comment by Emico "Pointing out the lies put out by anonymous website. Mr Clayworth hellbent on propagating a lie." [72]. CJ Clayworth removes Emico's original research and the link to the Bereans website [73]. Emico adds info on Calvinist background Emico adds contention that Calvinism was Catholic due to acceptance of the Trinity [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bereans&diff=next&oldid=14277311. More on the Trinity [74]. Raygirvan (talk · contribs) removes references to Trinity and places the diverse items into context [75]. Emico restores his original research and wrecks Raygirvan's improvements [76]. Emico adds historical material [77]. Raygirvan restores, but removes historical material added by Emico [78]. Raygirvan adds material about use of "Berean" to represent reliance on scriptural authority [79]. Emico restores but wrecks the contributions of others [80]. Raygirvan makes a useful explanitory edit [81].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Acts 17:11

5.1) The Bereans are mentioned in the New Testament in Acts 17:11 [82], "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Thus the use of "Berean" means to place emphasis on scripture as authority. This makes comprehensible Emico's emphasis on the Trinity which is poorly supported by explicit scriptural authority.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Iglesia ni Cristo

6) Another focus of controversy is Iglesia ni Cristo, first created by Seav (talk · contribs) on August 4, 2003 [83]. Many edits follow, most by anonymous editors. The first edit by the parties in this matter was on January 2, 3005 by Lbmixpro (talk · contribs) [84] placing an NPOV template on the article and making the first edit on the talk page of the article [85]. After some back and forth between anonymous editors Lbmixpro removes the NPOV template, After a few more edits HowardB (talk · contribs) makes an aggressive edit adding critical material and external links with the comment "revert to restablish NPOV" [86]. On March 1, 2005 Jendee1 (talk · contribs) made a series of edits removing negative information about the church with the comment "The previous articles had many INCORRECT information & many errors about our religion and our religion is NOT A CULT." [87]. Deleted material was restored by Foobaz (talk · contribs) [88]. On March 21, 2005 Ealva (talk · contribs) restored the NPOV template [89] with this comment on the talk page [90]. Lbmixpro replaced it with a bias template [91] with this talk page comment [92]. Lpmixpro then replaced the bias template with the attention template [93] with a comment on the talk page [94]. Meanwhile according to the talk page 70.56.90.224 (talk · contribs) deleted a great deal of arguably biased material, signing his name "Glenn Cessor" [95] then created Gcessor (talk · contribs) [96]. Rlquall (talk · contribs) and Lpmixpro make a series of useful edits. On March 27, 2005 Onlytofind (talk · contribs) makes his first edits [97] [98]. Ealva then reverted one of Onlytofind's edits with the comment "Removed donation bias." [99]. Glenn Cessor is denounced by 69.231.205.239 (talk · contribs) as a "member and deacon in the Iglesia Ni Cristo" [100]. Onlytofind identifies himself as a former member, pledging adherence to NPOV [101]. Ealva responds [102] [103] [104]. Onlytofind responds [105]. Ealva responds back [106]. Glenn Cessor responds [107] [108] [109]. Response by Onlytofind [110] [111]. Lpmixpro identifies himself as a "former indoctee" [112]. Apologetics by Glenn Cessor [113]. Onlytofind responds [114]. Onlytofind throws some mud [115] and defends his edit [116]. Lpmixpro asks a question about Jesus [117]. E.lantaran (talk · contribs) queries regarding sources [118] [119]. Ealva responds to attack on "blind faith" [120]. Onlytofind argues [121]. Soft words from Ealva [122]. Soft words from Onlytofind [123]. Onlytofind supplies links and attacks E.lantaran [124]. E.lantaran (talk · contribs) responds [125]. Onlytofind attacks [126]; E.lataran responds [127]. Ealva expresses sympathy [128]. Onlytofind again attacks E.lataran [129]. Onlytofind apologizes with soft words, but excludes E.lataran [130]. Lpmixpro suggests a forum [131]. E.Lateran again requests sources for the information in the article [132]. Lpmixpro admits most information in the article is derived from personal experience [133]. Rlquall (talk · contribs) notes improvement in article and seconds "this is not a forum" [134]. gcessor (talk · contribs) questions fairness of Iglesia ni Cristo [135]. Lpmixpro comments on difficulties of finding neutral sources for a polarized subject [136]. Onlytofind notes church's discouragement of internet postings by church members [137]. Ealva clarifies [138]. 71.32.81.48 (talk · contribs) (gcessor) again complains about balance [139]. Onlytofind responds [140]. Adartse (talk · contribs) comments on restoration of Catholic "con" site [141]. Onlytofind threatens gcessor with Arbitration [142]. Seeking authority [143]. Onlytofind throws down the gauntlet [144].

Emico enters Emico (talk · contribs), apparently gcessor, makes his first edit responding to onlytofind's attacks [145]. Lpmixpro starts poll on "con" links [146]. Onlytofind links INC to Arius [147]; Emico reverts with the comment "Your personal opinion do not belong here" [148]. DJ Clayworth (talk · contribs) makes his first minor edit [149]. Emico removed detailed information with the comment "Much better. non POV" [150]. 24.16.167.121 (talk · contribs) deletes link to Harper article, and Category New religions [151]. Restored, anon removes it again [152]. Restored, Emico removes it repeatedly [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]. Raygirvan removes another "con" link to make room for Harper article [159]. Grace Note (talk · contribs) restores [160]. Emico deletes [161] [162]. Emico tries to discredit a critic [163]. Emico insists on a POV [164] {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&diff=next&oldid=15400690]. Emico removes information with the comment "Removed POV" [165] [166]. Emico adds template based on his lack of time [167]. Reverted, added it again repeatedly [168] [169] [170]. Gcessor responds to attack by Onlytofind [171] [172]. 71.32.86.239 strikes through personal attack [173]. 71.32.86.239 requests an explanation [174]. Onlytofind threatens Emico with banning [175] [176] (combined with personal attack). Rlquall (talk · contribs) requests an end to the personal attacks [177]. 71.32.86.239 (gcessor) recounts past grievances [178] and counterattacks [179]. Onlytofind takes thought [180] [181] and promises respect [182]. Gcessor cools down a bit [183]. Onlytofind promises [184]. Onlytofind requests help with Felix Manalo, Erano Manalo and Eduardo Manalo, denouncing Emico [185]. Emico charges collusion between Onlytofind and Lpmixpro [186]. Emico points out lack of sourcing [187]. Onlytofind pop-poos Emico [188] the expresses his love [189]. Emico points out that both are critics [190]. Lbmixpro queries regarding verifiability and whether it applies [191] [192]. Emico expresses the churches defensive position [193]. Lbmixpro sympathizes [194]. Query to Emico about Emico Lantaran [195]. Emico makes his point, the information in the article is not "authorized" by the church [196]. Onlytofind responds [197] as does Raygirvan [198]. Emico sees the light, but finds it dark [199]. The pot Emico notes that Onlytofind is very black kettle [200]. Gcessor gives his excuse for deleting information [201] [202]. Gcessor strongly justifies removal of information [203] [204] [205]. Gcessor describes POV editing as his duty [206]. Onlytofind raises some points [207].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

References regarding Iglesia ni Cristo

6.1) There are limited references available regarding Iglesia ni Cristo. An Amazon search for the subject yields 5 hits, but all are out of print. A subject search on ABE yields 5 hits in Spanish and Studies in Philippine church history ISBN 0801404851. There is some information on the internet, for example http://goasia.about.com/od/philippines/a/INC.htm but most Google hits treat Iglesia ni Cristo as a cult. The church itself has no internet presence [208]. The result is that most positive information in Iglesia ni Cristo is material from either sympathetic or hostile former church members; current church members are advised to address inquiries to the church [209]. 68.165.4.41 (talk · contribs), who appears to be connected with the church, added information on contacting Iglesia ni Cristo [210]. See also http://www.apts.edu/jam/01-1/a-harper.pdf http://www.inc.org.ph and http://www.iglesianicristo.us/ (The last seems to be a spoof site, see http://www.iglesianicristo.us/bigfour.html ) http://www.taestensen.com/robert/fft_doc/2f_main.htm http://jesus-messiah.com/html/ross-tipon.html http://student631.tripod.com/biblestudentspage/ http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=11421 http://128.32.250.15:8080/pepesblog/2005/02/21

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iglesia_ni_Cristo&diff=prev&oldid=15525199

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo&diff=next&oldid=15106921

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: