Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp1>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp2>
  • What happened.

• <timestamp3>
  • What happened.

• 06:20, May 28, 2005
  • 1a - Emico creates a minor edit to the INC giving reference to an edit he made at the Bereans.

• 19:44, May 28, 2005
  • 1b - Emico accuses DJ_Clayworth of being "a member of a sect based in teh philippines.", when Clayworth responded to a RfC on the Bereans article.

• 00:46, May 29, 2005
  • 2a - I look into what the edit was all about, reverted it to avoid 3RR, and repair damage to "article structure" (Note category listings and references were erased).

• 08:09, May 29, 2005
  • 2b - Emico sends me a message on my talk page confronting/baiting me to prove my NPOV status about the article.

• 04:48, May 30, 2005
  • 3a - Through the duration of 4 edits (Clayworth made an edit between my second and third edit) ( 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f), I write out my reply to Emico. First 3 deal with his conduct with others, and the 3RR. The last about article structure and omitted references.

• 11:07, May 31, 2005
  • 4a - Emico violates WP:NPA me by calling me a loser and claiming I'm trying to get around WP:3RR.

• 15:05, May 31, 2005
  • 4b - I respond to Emico's attack, citing WP:NPA, what WP:3RR says about group reverts and removing references without consensus.

• 16:08, May 31, 2005
  • 4c 4d 4e - Emico stands on his claim of me getting around the 3RR, I bold a major point in my original reply and tell Emico I don't want to argue with him.

• 18:56, May 31, 2005
  • 4f - I give full reason of my involvement to the Main editors of the Bereans group, stating I didn't want any involvement with it other than Disambig.

• 07:48, June 2, 2005
  • 5a - Emico responds and erases all previous discussion about page disambig.

• 07:56, June 2, 2005
  • 5b - Emico once again attacks and insists Onlytofind put me up to the revert.

• 08:19, June 2, 2005
  • 5c Emico posts in INC's talk page questioning my intentions of the article, stating I and Onlytofind "colluded to get around Wikipedia rules."

• 15:22, June 2, 2005
  • 5d 5e I warn him at the Bereans talk page that his personal attacks are provoking people to issue an RfA, asked to make amends and the reason for him erasing the Disambig talk. He says he was unaware of the omissions.

• 00:16, June 4, 2005
  • 6a - My response to evidence item "5c". I remind the INC contributers of my intent with the article, as well as citing examples showing them.

• 00:44, June 4, 2005
  • 6b (diff covers two edits) - Through 2 edits, one being a minor grammar and wikilink edit, I responded to Emico's attack on his talk page pointing out the intial INC Bereans edit, and that I'm no longer enjoing WP with his attacks.

• 07:13, June 4, 2005
  • 6c (diff covers two edits) - Emico responds through 2 edits saying he didn't come to WP to attack people, but I abused WP's freedom to edit, He also claimed "go ahead with threats of banning, arbitrating and whatever, and reverting my edit, and I'll continue with what I do."

• 07:44, June 4, 2005
  • 6d - Emico's response to item "6a". Emico acknowleges my intent as "honorable" explains his intent of the INC article.

• 13:52, June 4, 2005
  • 6f - My response to above statement from Emico.

• 14:30, June 4, 2005
  • 6e - I assumed failure to comply to WP:AGF, told him that I would assume good faith about his edits and considered the WP:NPA issue resolved as far as I'm involved. I explained to him about how WP:DR works.

• 07:31, June 6, 2005
  • 7a - This was emico's response. I haven't responded to him on the NPA issue since.

• 07:47, June 9, 2005
  • 9a - I look into an edit war between Emico and Onlytofind, in which Onlytofind presented an allegation as fact, and Emico removes the information.

• 12:47, June 9, 2005
  • 9b - I present Onlytofind's information as an allegation, believing the allegations were notable enough to be put in the article.

• 12:55, June 9, 2005
  • 9c 9d - Emico once again deleted it stating the linked reference cannot be verified, since the link is only a summary of the book. I agreed, stating we should instead cite the actual page numbers and use WP's ISBN features instead of the link.

• 13:03, June 9, 2005
  • 9e 9f 9g 9h - Emico and Onlytofind have been engaging in an edit war since my response (9d).

• • 8a 8b - Raygirvan leaves as an active member of Wikipedia for various reasons. Emico writes "The clique is now severely disabled. It's death will soon follow." in his talk page soon after.

The evidence presented at this time only covers the NPA and 3RR issue between me and Emico in late may, early June. It does not cover recent POV edit wars, personal attacks against other Wikipedians or his assumed reaction to User:Raygirvan's leave from WP. More evidence may be provided in the near future. -- LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} June 29, 2005 13:38 (UTC) (First edit: July 6, 2005 22:32 (UTC))

In regards to the proposed finding-of-fact indicating I may have signed evidence 3a as DJ Clayworth. Please note that the diff of 3a actually spans 5 different edits, in which Clayworth was the editor of the third one. I have edited the 30 May entry to indicate exactly which edits I have made (links 3b 3c 3e and 3f) and which ones Clayworth made (3d). -- LBMixPro ^{(Speak on it!)} 01:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• 22:37, 25 Jun 05
  • Glenn Cessor, another member of Iglesia ni Cristo, creates a section praising Emico although he has continued to push his own POV and treat non-INC affiliated Wikipedians with contempt. Glenn then condemns me for speaking out against Emico's bias and accuses me of using insults once again, and I point out that he has never condemned Emico's conduct, which warranted arbitration and the fact that he is guilty of using insults himself. In my opinion, I believe that they are working in tandem to promote their POV and discredit my contributions because I do not agree with their personal viewpoint. He also includes an unnecessary link to an external forum, which I believe, along with the rest of the post, is an attempt to bait me. It is highly unusual for three parties to be involved in a dispute, but since I am a former member of the Iglesia ni Cristo, I can speak from personal experience that members will take the side of other members whenever a dispute occurs, such as this one, especially against those who don't agree with their opinion about the INC.

• 16:08, 26 June 05
  • Emico makes a reply "they'll get what's coming to them anyways." referring to those who do not agree with his opinion regarding the Iglesia ni Cristo. I then ask him what it means, and he says that people who he claims are speaking against the Iglesia ni Cristo will be "in darkness." He then says that he believes everyone who doesn't speak favorably about the INC are "liars." Emico's bias towards the INC and against all other religions seems to have grown stronger.

• 18:25, 27 June 05
  • Emico makes an edit to the Iglesia ni Cristo page obviously biased against Protestants and Trinitarians. I revert his edit back. I have no desire to start an edit war, but his bias is extremely obvious.

• 10:51 [2]
  • Emico adds a personal rant against The Bereans, a Phillipine apologetics organisation that criticised the Iglesia ni Cristo (and many other organisations). The rant includes personal comments and the factually incorrect statement that The Bereans are a Catholic organisation (they are in fact anti-Catholic). Over the next few days he will re-add this statement many times, sometimes in slightly different forms.

• 01:05 23 May [3]
  • I explain on the talk page why Emico's rant is unacceptable.

• 10:42 [4]
  • Edit summary "Mr Clayworth hellbent on propagating a lie"

• 01:24 [5]
  • Emico adds a passage about Calvinism and the Trinity to a section about The Bereans (this time a Scottish denomination with the same name, unconnected with the Phillipine group). These Bereans beliefs about the Trinity were entirely normal, yet Emico insisted on adding this section explaining why these beliefs, and the beliefs of 98% of Christians, were wrong. He will re-add this section or similar ones several times over the next few days.

• 09:09 [6] Emico removes a large number of external links and valuable text under the summary "Restore from vandalism attack".

• As a slight correction to what LBmixpro said regarding 19:44, May 28, 2005, I initiated the RfC on Bereans, rather than responded to it. DJ Clayworth 5 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)