Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), its subject may request for the page to be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC).

Please note that this RfC has been superseded by a Request for arbitration. Comments from other parties are welcomed.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This dispute is with user Emico about his ("his" assumed for conciseness) disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia: repeated reversion of accepted edits in favour of his strongly POV stance; failure to abide by Wikipedia guidelines while editing articles and contributing to associated Talk pages; personal attacks against various users; and breach of the 3 revert rule.

Description[edit]

Emico has been making extreme POV edits, apparently on religious grounds, to Iglesia ni Cristo, Bereans and related articles. He has also personally attacked anyone opposed to his edits, including the editors of Bereans. This has extended to editors such as Raygirvan who joined the discussion as a response to the [1] request for comment.

The behaviour appears to stem from a dispute between the Philippine religious organisations The Bereans [2] and Iglesia ni Cristo. Emico's user page indicates that he supports the latter, and this appears to bias his edits of the Bereans article. He treats any reference to the Philippine Bereans, however worded, as unacceptably favourable to them, and this bias extends to the historical Bereans (a defunct 19th century Scottish sect) where he repeatedly edits in unsubstantiated claims of a continuity with the modern USA-based Berean church.

A particular complaint is disruptive editing of the Bereans page: refusal to abide by repeated requests to Cite sources, to write with a Neutral point of view and to avoid original research. He has repeatedly reverted to early edits of the page, deleting cited sources and links, category information and other users' contributions. His edit summaries list as "vandalism" edits by those who dispute his version of the page, and he has several times asserted that critics of his claims and Wikipedia conduct are members of the Bereans that the page describes.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Generally, see Talk:Bereans
  2. [3] - Initial Diff between first Bereans edit and its revert.
  3. [4] Later typical revert, removing text, categories, sources, links.
  4. [5] Personal attacks plus evidence of POV stance: Are you a member of this berean cult? If you are, can you tell me what your source is for making the claim on you website. If you're not a member, then why do you care so much. The link you had had claims that were'nt true. Why do you participate in propagating lies? Do you know what you look like if you cover up for liars?
  5. [6] Further personal attacks and rejection of advice to follow Wikipedia guidelines on citation: Very interesting. I think it would help if you admit you're a berean
  6. User_talk:Emico Personal attacks and evidence of POV on religious matters: Mr Ray (Raygirvan) went from an atheiist impartial advocate of non-partisanship to a defender of bereans ... Stop living a lie DJ (DJ Clayworth). Admit you are a member of a sect based in teh philippines ...Facts. You can't defeat them. The truth is the truth is the truth. Even being ganged up by 3 losers, the truth remains. Up to this point, 3 men(?), or is it 1 person using 3 names, cannot get over the facts. That authoritative source states the trinity was decreed by the catholics, and that it is not biblical. Their post reveal what's going on in their minds.
  7. [7] POV on a cited source, and original research. Mr DJ put a link of a website whose owner is unknown. I tried to find out who the owner is but there were no replies. I simply wanted the website owner to stand behind what he puts out on the web, put his name on it and be ready to defend. I was asking too much. These liar are never going to back up their claims. The website was spewing lies and me and Mr DJ being lovers of truth finally agreed to remove it.
  8. [8] Original research again: If you want to know, on the Berean website there was profile. I personally asked member of the Iglesia ni Cristo if that particular entry was correct and was told it was not. I tried to have the Bereans correct it but unfortunately, most of the writers on that website do not sign their work. And there were no other ways to contact them but via a web-based form. I did not get a reply nor a correction to the error I pointed out.
  9. Erano Manalo
  10. In the history of the Bereans article, after a moratorium on edits was placed, a user with the IP 165.248.247.134 [bcweb.k12.hi.us] in Hawaii mysteriously edited the article back to the last Emico version, replete with a Emico-like comment "This version is better" which is tragically ludicrous, to say the least. I have good reason and evidence to believe that it was Emico, trying in vain to "disguise" himself and circumvent the 3RR rule.
  11. After this edit was reverted, yet another anonymous IP re-inserted the same edit.
  12. And it continues: persistent edits by 210.5.64.246 (a group of addresses in the Philippines) and 195.55.164.8 (an address in Spain) to revert the Bereans page to a form with irrelevant and POV background material that fails to Cite sources accurately. For instance, using present tense to refer to the historical Scottish sect described as "extinct" in the Columbia Encyclopedia [9]. RayGirvan 00:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. [10] Personal attack, false accusation; Summary of dispute May 28 2005 sub-section: Too bad. It's a good fight(so to speak) and 4 against 1 is'nt so bad. One of them [ User:Lbmixpro ] reverts for another to get around the 3 revert rule. He does'nt even read what he's reverting! loser. But I do have to do some personal stuff. My comments are in User_talk:Emico. I don't want to put them here where the vandals are. Emico 18:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. WP:3RR
  4. Wikipedia:Cite sources
  5. Wikipedia:No original research

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

  • [11] Attempt by DJ Clayworth - rejected - to advocate Neutral point of view.
  • Wikiquette alerts 24 May External view of article content solicited by alert treated as 'tag-teaming'.
  • [12] End of page: attempt to achieve compromise by If you're genuinely prepared to cooperate on editing, I'm happy to do so likewise. This apparent truce and attempt to negotiate and re-edit, with careful explanation of the Wikipedia rationale for each edit, ended with further blanket reversion by Emico [13].
  • [14] Attempt to avert edit war by citing Wikipedia guidelines: that editing is acceptable, and that sources must be cited.
  1. See above links.
  2. Talk:Bereans - repeated requests to Cite sources and adopt NPOV, as well as specifically NPOV#Religion.
  • [15] Advised Emico about WP:NPA - Result in reply "Don't be a sore loser."

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. DJ Clayworth 01:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RayGirvan 02:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 22:11, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Onlytofind 04:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} Users lbmixpro and onlytofind colluded to get around wikipedia rules. Emico 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When asked why he reverted my edits, 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". His excuse was that he did'nt really made the effort to understand what he was reverting, nor if it was prudent to revert without first investigating. Basically, his defense was ignorance. Bottom line, he took one side against another, and reverted for another user to get around the wilipedia 3 revert rule. Emico 15:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another display of lbmixpro's bias are his complaints against my "attitude". I'd like to see him call out onlytofind's insults. don't be a johnny come lately again.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Emico 15:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Hello, I have been a frequent editor and contributor to the Iglesia ni Cristo, Erano Manalo and Felix Manalo articles. Reading the description on Emico's userpage shows his bias and desire for preferential treatment towards the Iglesia ni Cristo and personnel inside the Iglesia ni Cristo. The Bereans (based in the Philippines) and the church of Ang Dating Daan are two organizations who oppose the teachings of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and Emico has shown extreme bias against those organizations, placing personal comments and opinions inside of the articles relating to those groups. I am a former member of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and have added positive and negative information, to the best of my knowledge in the article, and Emico has consistently accused me of being affiliated with the latter two organizations although I am not. I have spoken to him on numerous occasions about this, and it seems that he will not relent in his behavior. I concur with Raygirvan that this kind of behavior is detrimental to the Wikipedia, and I implore the sysops to do something about Emico. Thank you.--Onlytofind 04:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello, I have not done these statements that Onlytofind is accusing me of. If he has mistaken me for somebody else, I do believe I deserve an apology. Ealva 07:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite. This needs clarifying. Onlytofind, what is Ealva to do with this? The complaint is specifically about Emico RayGirvan 09:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I sincerely apologize for dragging Ealva into this discussion. He has not done anything which I have unwittingly accused him of in the paragraph and the reason his name appears above is because I was tired on the night when I wrote this, and I confused the names since both were so close. I have corrected my paragraph and affirm that Emico has committed the accusations above and user Ealva has nothing to do with this dispute. Sincerely, --Onlytofind 19:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apology accepted. Excuse was lame though. :-) Ealva 02:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could have came up with a better excuse, but I decided the truth, as pathetic as it might sound was better :^P--Onlytofind 03:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

While I certify the basis for this dispute, I do not believe that User:Emico yet deserves serious action. A short block in response to any further violations of 3RR might be applicable. DJ Clayworth 01:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that behaviour like this poisons the functioning of Wikipedia. As well as failing to abide by simple conventions such as citing sources, this user is so deeply biased - if you disagree, you're instantly accused of being a member of the organisation that's his idee fixe - that it's hard to see how any compromise could be reached. RayGirvan 03:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. Emico is clearly not listening to reason. He deserves exclusion until he learns to handle cases where his personal viewpoint does not match up with the consensus. DJ Clayworth 13:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this page, he has come back with renewed vigor in insulting others and pushing his ignorance upon the Wikipedia. I would like to see him expelled from Wikipedia, and the Bereans, Felix Manalo and Erano Manalo articles locked.--Onlytofind 21:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emico's attitude and personal attacks have brought me to the conclusion of agreeing with the above in referring Emico to the Arbitration Committee, for further action. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 05:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Emico has gotten wise to us, and thinks that by not logging in, he can fool everyone into thinking that it's not him who's doing this. I propose a lock on the Bereans, Felix Manalo and Erano Manalo articles once we can get consensus on the latter two. (moved to discussion sub-section area by LBMixPro(Speak on it!))

Search for "agustinongpinoy" or "agustinong pinoy" in Google and you'll find out Emico does it everywhere, not just here. He even has faked using someone else's identity. (Contribution posted by Onlytofind - it's best if we only list things happening in Wikipedia.)

Lbmixpro's response to Emico's "cross-examination"[edit]

Accoring Emico's responce, he states I reverted the page per request of Onlytofind. He hasn't posted my complete statement:

"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. Just like User:DJ_Clayworth told you, Wikipedia has a three revert rule, which can cause either you to be temporarily banned from Wikipedia, or the article you're reverting to be locked. It's what Wikipedia does, and whether or not is fair doesn't matter. Also, I reverted it because the original edit contained more repuatble sources than yours. Removing large parts of the article without good reason and consensus is not what you do here."

Along with that statement, my replies at the 17:56, May 31, 2005 verion of talk:bereans gives the full reason for my involvement in the Bereans article.

The diff between the revert in question explains itself. He ommited critical elements of the article's structure -- such as category listings, and references --, which was my primary reason for reversion. Although I didn't completely read his revision, that diff alone was grounds of reversion. Onlytofind had no knowlege of my reversion prior to it.

FYI: Assuming Emico was correct in his claims, WP:3RR states: 3RR specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting, somebody else will probably do it—and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct. Therefore my reversion would be still valid based on that guideline. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Emico's response[edit]

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you rule over everyone else. of course we all agree you have authority on this article, and so what you decreed is final and binding. Although, if I may say so, mediating and investigation before butting in would have been better for resolving things. But that's just me.

  • Allow me to remind you about article authority; Believe it or not, I don't have authority over the articles. Sysops and the Arbitration Committee have that. I believe in consensus, And I'm usually the one at the INC article which puts that into excersise. Everybody has the ablility to create a survey, as I done in the INC links situation. It's part of the Dispute resolution process, just as much as this page is. Nothing here is final and binding, as this is a "Request for Comment" page. It's only here to get more outside help to resolve this dispute, and to make sure the arguments stay in one place. Each person who certified this page has their own reasons of why it's up here, we only agree on one thing; we believe your conduct on Wikipedia is determental to the progress and enjoyment of the site. Some reasons are the same as other wikipedians. If we can't seem to resolve the problem that this point, we'll take it up to a higher level in the dispute process. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 02:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

How do you know the source are refutable if you did'nt read them.

    • If I remember correctly, there was a book and a Bereans website, which appeared official. Why was the book omitted? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 10:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nice ending, but self serving, as usual. Emico 20:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another display of lbmixpro's bias are his complaints against my "attitude". I'd like to see him call out onlytofind's insults. don't be a johnny come lately again. Emico 15:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • My attitude and opinions of Emico's conduct do not have any affect on how I edit articles. In contrast to his claim, I have agreed to some of his suggestions throughout the duration of this dispute. My conduct here does not excuse his, just as much as his conduct doesn't excuse mine. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • well said. I hope I don't stumble upon something you wrote on wikipedia that'll make you a liar. Emico 20:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Just as much as I hope not to find another personal attack from you. Note to Onlytofind: Please don't try to add more fuel to the fire, I'm trying to resolve the NPA issue here, you know you don't like to be dissed, so don't diss Emico, no matter how much m:Wikistress his posts may cause you. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I would have wrote "I hope I don't stumble upon something you wrote on wikipedia that would contradict what you posted", and wouldn't have sounded like a personal attack. But that's me. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!)
    • There you go again. You like to criticize others, let's not forget that you're the one who started the whole insult and baiting game, with myself, RayGirvan, DJClayworth, and even LBMixPro, who was and still is trying to help you become a useful contributor even though you broke so many rules. Yet, that didn't excuse me for starting a flame war with you, when I should have just reported you to the sysops in the first place. I will now leave this up to the arbitrators.--Onlytofind 20:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current situation: the Bereans article seems to have settled to a steady and NPOV state. However, given that the personal abuse is still going on, both in discussions here and on the Talk page, I'm not confident that Emico won't start reverting it again the moment the spotlight is off. It shouldn't be forgotten that this problem extends across several other articles (for instance, see here) where he is continuing to try to bring a specific religious POV: slanting articles in favour of the Iglesia ni Cristo church. This has seen a lot of wasted verbiage for a small article, but the issue is about flouting a central Wikipedia convention. RayGirvan 11:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You say I'm 'slanting in favor of the INC'? Why do you question my intentions, and not those of the others including yourself? Is'nt this a proof of a biased POV? Why do you join in pressing me for sources, but not the others? You actions show your bias. Emico 15:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA Issue Resolved[edit]

Based on recent developments, I have now reached a resolution in the NPA issue as far as I'm concerned. This is what's written in the 21:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC) version of User Talk:Emico From now on, I'll assume good faith about your posts. But you should note that all articles are subject to WP's guideines and policies. As far as I'm concerned, my primary reason for disupte is now resolved, since I expect no more trash talk (at least toward me). But that doesn't prevent anybody from taking further action against you for any other reason. Remember each action made is part of the Resolution process, just as I said that the RfC. Arbitration is only another form of trying to get our issues settled. -- Just look at the WP entry for the term "Arbitration". The Arbitration committee may react in your favor, if your future edits to WP are in the best interests of WP. Also there are other Wikipedia-like sites which you may find more productive and enjoyable. Wikipedia isn't the only "free encyclopedia". --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 21:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Cautiously, agreed: as long as Emico also agrees to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines we cited. And of course all this is on record if it starts up again the moment the RfC process is over. A useful point of reference is the Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, third paragraph, which suggests a mutually agreeable format for description of religious views. RayGirvan 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I will use good faith regarding Emico's contributions to the Wikipedia in the future, as he has expressed his desire for fairness and neutrality as well as a moratorium on personal attacks, which I hope will translate into productive contributions and constructive discussion. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, but make sure that history does not repeat itself once again. --Onlytofind 03:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration has begun[edit]

Emico has broken the uneasy peace that we have had, and is trying to bait me by bolding a previous insult I made to him on the Erano Manalo talk page, even though I declared a moratorium on insults a few days back; and he insists on bringing up something I did a month ago, even though he has frequently made personal attacks on us since then. I told him to get his behavior in check or I would report him to arbitration, and he baited me once again and accused me of "threatening him." I understand the Wikistress this is causing each of us, but I can't rest until this ordeal is finally over.--Onlytofind 03:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the reason I 'bolded' the comment was to highlight Onlytofinds ungentlemanly conduct which incites flame wars on the discussion page. In the above mentioned talk page, when asked to cite sources for the article, after a few exchanges, this is what Onlytofind posted - 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). This 'bolding' was made after another round of threats. I intentionally ignore his namecalling and rude post because I was sure he was baiting me. This will be my last post concerning this matter. I do not intend to spend anymore time arguing with Onlytofind. --Emico 04:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please also check the Iglesia ni Cristo talk page where one contributor noted Onlytofind 'strongly implied' I was illiterate. Note also I did not respond to this personal attack and flame bait. --Emico 04:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Emico&oldid=1064219498"