Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 18 May 2008 (→Evidence by User:FeloniousMonk: fmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Krimpet

Use of off-wiki communication and "secret lists"

One point that really seems to have made Cla68 sore is the existence and clandestine goings-on of private, invitation-only mailing lists last fall. One, WpCyberstalking is/was operated by SlimVirgin; the other, WpInvestigations-l, was apparently run by User:JzG at one point, though he claims there was a previous, unspecified owner.

Not having access to any of these lists, I can provide little evidence other than hearsay. What I do know is that the initial list was started by SlimVirgin for discussing legitimate, serious concerns of online harassment, but it apparently devolved into flamewars and witch-hunting for "troll enablers" (in fact she later privately apologized to me personally for what was said about me on her list.) Apparently at some point it was decided to break those discussions off into a "investigations" list instead, though I for one know little about this and who was involved in the fork. I would hope that someone more involved could come forward with some better evidence and explanation - it's known that several current and former arbitrators, as well as Foundation staff, were participants in one or both mailing lists, too.

Not long after that, Jayjg, one of the participants in the aforementioned lists, accidentally sent a canvassing request intended for friends to wikien-l, drawing widespread ire.

That off-wiki friendships form and editors will often back people up is completely natural, a consequence of human nature. What's disturbing, though, is that many of the editors involved are vocal crusaders against "meatpuppets," while often engaging in off-wiki coordination that is, essentially, equivalent to the "meatpuppetry" they are protesting.

Cla68 does seem to frequently come off as obsessive and holding a grudge when he locks horns with these folks he's come into conflict with in the past. But the more one looks into it, it seems clear he's been baited into this; many of the users he has come into conflict with have indeed been shown to be collaborating offsite, and personal attacks and allegations have been flung at him. Cla's incivility in response is the symptom; the bullying and underhanded collaboration against him and other contributors that caused it is what needs to be addressed.

A first-hand experience of bullying by FeloniousMonk

I recently had the misfortune of being targetted by FeloniousMonk's personal attacks firsthand - not a pleasant experience. The week before, I had tried to fix a coatracky BLP on a woman in the field of computer science, which focused too much on one event in her life without putting it in context, only to find I'd walked into a landmine of controversy between the WikiProject on Intelligent Design, of which FeloniousMonk was a member, with an indefinitely blocked user, User:Moulton. An ensuing edit war erupted - of which I took no part in other than my initial edit and one revert - which eventually ended in the BLP being brought to an acceptable state, though with plenty of unneeded conflict, as well as a slew off harrowing insults from WikiProject ID members.

But after this dispute had been over for a week, hoping it was now in the past I came across an MfD for the User:Moulton page - and found that FeloniousMonk had added a sentence describing me as a "Misplaced Pages Review editor" and a "meatpuppet" that had been "recruited" by him - an untrue allegation constituting a direct and insulting personal attack against myself. (He also proceeded to protect his version of the page at this time - strongly forbidden by our protection policy and community rules of thumb.) I removed the attack with a simple plea not to drag me back into the dispute, but FeloniousMonk only re-added it to a new page, even refining it to word it more sharply against me and single me out more pointedly. My attempts to remove it and ask him on his talk page to stop were rebuffed with him re-adding the attack and replying that he had "diffs" supposedly confirming I was meatpuppeting, which he didn't actually provide.

This behavior is not only against our policies forbidding personal attacks; it's baiting, drama-mongering, and hostile to collaboration. Trying to force an established user to be branded with the label of "meatpuppet" with no evidence after the dispute is over serves no purpose but to inflame things more. krimpet✽ 13:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by PalestineRemembered

Need more personal integrity from admins

• I have serious concerns about the personal integrity behind some administrative actions and I've presented brief evidence I considered adequate to demonstrate the point. I've been asked to remove this evidence, and am doing so now. I trust this is not a problem to be swept under the carpet. PR 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

This is a summary of my evidence as presented in the RfAr. I'll be adding specific examples and diffs over the next week or so.

Cla68 does good work in the main namespace, but it is punctuated by prolonged attempts to make the project a toxic place for others. This involves on and offwiki harassment of his targets, wikistalking, constant niggling, exaggeration, sarcasm, efforts to humiliate them, and misleading descriptions of their actions.

I have been one of his targets for over a year. It has involved following me to articles and talk pages I edit a lot and that he has never edited, claims that I edit in bad faith, that I am a liar, that I abuse the admin tools, that I am a "formerly respected" editor, and that I am up to something and need to be investigated. He often refers to my alleged sockpuppetry, and encourages others to post links to attack sites or posts them himself.

I have stayed away from him and haven't responded for months to the taunting, but despite that, he started a user subpage about me in March, which he continues to work on. It is purportedly a draft RfC, but in my view it is just an attack page. The subheads have included at various points, "Lying or other unethical behavior," "Personal attacks, retaliation, bullying, and attempts to intimidate," "Abuse of administrator privileges," "bad faith editing," and "abusive sockpuppetry." The diffs do not bear out the claims. His edit summaries seem intended to provoke e.g. "un-freaking-believable," "you've got to be kidding me," "incredible," and "wow." He has gone through my talk page and asked 45 editors who have disagreed with me about something (going back many months or even years) to take part in constructing the subpage, although I'm glad to say that very few have joined in, and some have taken issue with him. I believe the aim of the page is to cause distress in the hope that I'll respond badly, which would allow him to kick up more fuss. SlimVirgin 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JzG

I am in two minds about whether to participate here. On the one hand, common sense urges me to steer well clear, since Cla68's past actions have led me to hold him in contempt, particularly because of his dishonest use of the Register to try to have his version of the Durova fiasco accepted as the official truth despite the fact that every single person who had detailed knowledge of the actual events, told Cla68 that he was wrong. On the other hand, I think I can with care present some issues without allowing my personal feelings to prevail.

Cla68's behaviour is hard to describe,l but if a single word must be found then I think "spiteful" would do.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cla68 is already referenced, I think. The excessively aggressive support of Bagley was extremely distressing to SlimVirgin, who had been deliberately targeted by Bagley, repeating the meme that Daniel Brandt seems to raise from time to time. ArbCom has, on its "zOMG secrtet" mailing list, a mail from Bagley titled "impressions on Oversight abuse of Jayjg and SlimVirgin" - I think that Cla68's furtherance of this agenda went well beyond what is acceptable, and this is noted by FloNight in the RfC.

In no particular order, and with more to come if I can stomach it, then. Some is old, apologies for that.

• , to user:Jossi, a snide and distinctly unpleasant comment.
• apparent Wikistalking
• Snide and unhelpful attack, combined with dismissal of the issue of harassment of editors
• on the matter of antisocialmedia
• links to a piece by Cade Metz (who Cla68 knows, Metz having been his outlet in the "secret"! mailing list story) to further his campaign against Jossi (incidentally, the article is characteristically inaccurate, failing to spot that Jossi !voted keep on the criticism fork afd). The irony! Cla689 creating a section on "conflict of interest" while pursuing an apparent conflict of interest...
• champions Piperdown
• , More Wikistalking
• part of a brief edit war to try to drag Jayjg into a contentious arbitration case, reverted by people including clerks and arbitrators numerous times.
• a dig at Jimbo and an indicationt hat he is on first-name terms with Metz, a long-standing sniper at Misplaced Pages
• a sockpuppet promotes Cla68's false allegations published in the Register
• trolling re Swalwell, Alberta, a part of the SV = LM meme
• , once again citing Metz.

This makes the comments here sound very hollow, and appear to be coercive in nature. But the really bad thing here is not so much the harassment and grudge-bearing, it's using the encyclopaedia to further your own agenda. Citing his friend Metz to support his own on-wiki agenda was a breathtakingly bad idea even if (and I for one have my doubts) Cla68 was not Metz's original source for the story. The fact that the subject was COI registers an easy ten on the irony meter.

Bottom line: as we see here, Cla68 appears to be completely sincere in his belief in some huge conspiracy or cabal on Misplaced Pages, and I think he has set himself the task of hounding out or "exposing" those who he perceives as being part of that group. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Dtobias

Cla68 has often been on the winning side of his disputes

Perhaps what has most rankled JzG about User:Cla68 is how often Cla68 has ended up on the prevailing side of the various disputes where he and JzG take opposing sides. To take a few of the items mentioned in the above evidence:

• The "Attack Sites" ArbCom case ended without any binding sanctions imposed regarding any links to so-called "attack sites", and JzG's attempt for a "clarification" imposing such sanctions later was dismissed.
• The Register article remains mentioned in the Criticisms of Misplaced Pages article, despite attempts by JzG to remove this mention.
• User:Piperdown has been unblocked, after his questionable block/ban was reexamined.
• Swalwell, Alberta was kept, and ultimately unprotected, and has had a peaceful, noncontentious, non-trolling existence ever since.
• The conflict of interest involving User:Mantanmoreland has been the subject of serious examination, and an ArbCom case, in which "trolls" are hardly the only ones who have seen problems.

FeloniousMonk has promoted a toxic, divisive mindset

User:FeloniousMonk has long been championing a very divisive, "us vs. them" mentality on Misplaced Pages, complete with "enemies lists" and guilt by association, in which he classifies people as part of "good" or "bad" crowds and tries to hound the "bad" ones off the project. A few examples:

• "This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks!" (in response to a user-conduct RFC) diff
• "What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included." (in response to some users expressing legitimate concerns about a copyvio image that was ultimately deleted, and then-admin Kelly Martin attempting to deal evenhandedly with the dispute) diff
• "Your little group has recently tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity... I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good." (in response to a disagreement over Featured Article criteria) diff
• "Given our policy on coercion, were I in your shoes I would make every effort to ensure that the article outing Misplaced Pages editors you are referring to does not come to pass." (to Cla68, regarding a hypothetical article that he has absolutely nothing to do with; in this diff, FM also linked to Misplaced Pages Review, which is hypocritical given that he's an outspoken member of a faction that insists that it is never justified to link to such "attack sites" under any circumstances) diff

Evidence presented by dave souza

Cla68 and the Rosalind Picard article

Moulton caused considerable difficulty at the Rosalind Picard article by a tendentious refusal to work within Misplaced Pages policies, and was indefinitely blocked. A stable version of the article agreed by all "sides" was reached on 8 December 2007, but Moulton continued his campaign for changes at Misplaced Pages Review. On 4 May 2008 Krimpet deleted a sentence as "overly tangential and coatracky". Moulton had objected to the sentence in earlier discussions. Krimpet contributes to Misplaced Pages Review but had not come to the article by a request from Moulton (according to Raul654 at AN/I and Moulton at WR.). When Orangemarlin reverted the edit as a "whitewash", Krimpet reverted him and questioned it on his talk page, and when Orangemarlin deleted the post, took the issue to AN/I without discussing it on the article talk page. Krimpet subsequently saw the merits of leaving in the sentence she had deleted. Cla68 joined in by putting a "Twinkle mis-use: formal warning" on Orangemarlin's talk page, and reported this to the AN/I thread at 04:15, 5 May 2008.

A Misplaced Pages Review thread commented on these developments, and on the evening of 5 May a contributor asked if Picard had reported it to the press, suggesting it could be "another Seigenthaler scandal". At 6:28am, 6th May 2008, Cla68 posted that the Picard article was now "fairly NPOV... thanks to Krimpet and the others who intervened", saying "The anti-ID group is making a mistake with their thuggery.." At 7:40am Moulton stated that he had described it to Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press. At 11:38pm, 6th May 2008, Cla68 posted "I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.", introducing the idea of outing editors' real names.

Rapid discussion at the Picard article, with useful new sources and various trial drafts, culminated with Guettarda consolidating a draft at 1:10 8 May 2008 which achieved consensus by 15.59.

At 17:33 that day Guettarda commented on Cla68's talk page that the Misplaced Pages Review post read like a threat to out people, and appeared "rather beyond the pale." At 00:40, 9 May 2008 Cla68 cross-posted the discussion on Guettarda's talk page, with his reply pointing at a "group of editors' behavior" as bringing "uninvolved editors and admins like me" in to varying degrees. Cla68 then "clarified his remarks" in a post on Misplaced Pages Review, denying threatening to out anyone but commenting that a journalist has been told of the "antics" of "this group of POV-pushers" and would not "find it too difficult to learn of their real names", saying "the Misplaced Pages editors who created this issue with their problematic behavior have only themselves to blame." My advice to Cla68 at 08:31 was that before throwing around accusations about "POV pushing" he should be familiar with the background and circumstances of the case, and should follow dispute resolution procedures rather than getting involved in off-wiki sniping At "6:19am" on the Misplaced Pages Review thread Cla68 made it clear that he was not fully familiar with what had happened, and had not looked at the ANI thread or the ArbCom.

Further analysis to follow

Evidence presented by User:G-Dett

"Making threats," "implied threats," "implicit threats," "menacing" statements, and so on

In the context of a dispute related to the recent Gary Weiss debacle, Felonious posted a report on me at AN/I, falsely alleging that I was “making threats.” Here was the exchanged he referred to:

OK, that constitutes a clear personal attack on Sami. This campaign has become disruptive. Knock it off. I've removed the personal attack. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Describing my contributions as a "campaign" is unwarranted and insulting, Felonious. Sami has attacked me incessantly on this page, and I've kept my cool in the face of it. What you just deleted, moreover, was not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. Admin privileges or no, I suggest you back off.--G-Dett (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the face of general bafflement at his description of my post as a “threat” (as one uninvolved editor put it, “it appears to be nothing more than a request to disengage"), Felonious explained that "since the unwritten or unspoken clause is usually 'or else...' it's an implied threat in my experience." I reminded him that whatever the value of such speculations into the unsaid, the unwritten, the unknown, and the invisible, they didn't belong on the "incidents" noticeboard.

That episode (archived here in its entirety) is worth recalling as Felonious files yet another formal complaint alleging “implicit threats” on the part of a Wikipedian he’s in dispute with. Cla68 has pointed out several times that his remark on WikipediaReview – wherein he wondered if a specific group of editors “are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Misplaced Pages" – was a reply to a lengthy post by another WR editor and blogger who described pursuing the story in print elsewhere. In other words, one guy says hey, people are looking into this and this is going to be a story, and Cla68 says, Wow, I wonder if these POV-pushers know about that; that's it, and there's no suggestion at all that the flow of speculated consequences is up to Cla68. None of Felonious' allegations about Cla68's "threats" have included this context, or even acknowledged Cla's repeated clarifications of same.

It's worth pointing out that this represents Cla68's consistent attitude toward the POV-pushing and team shenanigans that are the source of all this nonsense: his position is that this is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages, a project he manifestly cares deeply about (thousands of extremely high-quality edits and FA articles), and that these embarrassments are bound to become even more chronic damaging when the media gets a hold of them. To say that he welcomes damage to a project he has done more than anyone to build and improve is perverse.

Three days ago another admin admonished Felonious for threatening a fellow editor and treating him “like a dog you need to shame.” In that case there was nothing at all “implicit” in Felonious’s threat: “This was a violation of WP:CIVIL. Keep it up and I'll take a personal interest in seeing that you are prevented from making one again." Felonious nevertheless explained that by definition this was not a threat because he, Felonious, is an admin and was in the right: "Stopping an incivil editor from being uncivil is one of the jobs of an admin. Saying that you will do so is never a threat."

The picture that begins to emerge here is that Felonious doesn't use the word "threat" in its ordinary dictionary sense – to describe, that is, a statement of the form If you don't do stop doing X I will do Y to you, and you won't like it. Statements of this kind aren't threats, according to his definition, if the person making them has authority and righteousness on his side. Statements by someone who doesn't have authority in his eyes, conversely, can properly be described as "threats" even if they include nothing whatsoever about retaliation.

"Making threats," in short, is for Felonious a kind of idiosyncratic synonym for "insubordination," basically for uppitiness. This semantic peculiarity should be borne in mind as the committee weighs his allegations against Cla68.--G-Dett (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence by User:FeloniousMonk

Cla68 has engaged in a long-running pattern of harassment of editors he dislikes designed to drive them away from Misplaced Pages, or at least to make them feel very uncomfortable and weaken whatever esteem the community holds for them and thus render them unable to oppose him. This pattern of harassment includes wikistalking by inserting himself into content and other disputes his marks were involved in but he was not, and targeted personal attacks meant to fan the flames at these minor disputes to turn them into larger imbroglios, and recruiting others to join in. Over time his aggression has evolved to into making false or biased statements about fellow editors in the press and threats to out editors he opposes to the press.

His focus on editors he dislikes is sustained, obsessive and aggressive and has had the effect of threatening or intimidating not only his intended targets, but also has had a chilling effect community as a whole. Cla68's use of RFC, when viewed outside of context may appear to be reasonable and expected attempts at dispute resolution. But when viewed in the context of his long-running harassment, is clearly meant to be a continuation of that pattern of harassment. Going beyond the simple use of non-neutral tone, his descriptions of conflicts in RFC are wholly biased against their subject. Instead of resolving disputes his RFCs have perpetuated them through polarizing and divisive rhetoric, resulting in a bunker mentality in those who are targeted while fanning whatever flames in others that suit his ends and are handy in the community.

Relevant Policy

• Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikistalking
• Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Targeted_personal_attacks
• Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Threats
• Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information
• Misplaced Pages:Harassment#User_space_harassment
• Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment

Cla68's Harassment of JzG, Jayjg, Jossi, others

• Nov 22, 2007. Attempts to bully User:Mercury, spuriously claiming that he has an "obvious relationship" with Durova and that therefore his use of admin tools in relation to a Talk: page thread is "unethical", and that he will request his "immediate desysopping" if he uses them again. (Note: Durova was the admin who blocked Cla68 on October 20, 2007).
• Jan 10, 2008. Adds User:Jayjg to the Palestine-Israel case, ostensibly because of a comment Jayjg made that had nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles, on the Talk: page of an article that had nothing to do with Palestine-Israel articles, to an editor who doesn't edit Palestine-Israel articles. Though Cla68 realizes this "evidence" has nothing whatsoever to do with the case, he insists that "more evidence of problematic behavior by Jayjg can probably be presented on the evidence page once the case formally opens." Also tries to get Jayjg removed from the ArbCom mailing list. When various admins remove Cla68's spurious addition of Jayjg to the case, Cla68 subsequently edit-wars with them to keep Jayjg as a named member of the case. When challenged to produce actual evidence or problematic behavior by Jayjg in relation to these articles, he provides nothing more specific than a link to an RFC discussion on a Talk: page.
• Feb 6, 2008. Attempts to bully User:Jossi, based on another anti-Misplaced Pages hatchet piece in The Register, and threatens to "ask ArbCom to remove administrator privileges" if he doesn't do what Cla68 wants. Cla68 then adds Jossi to the COI Noticeboard, and further accuses Jossi (without any evidence) of being part of a "tag team" that has "push a particular POV" and "quashed criticism" on the Prem Rawat article, again threatening "formal action" if Jossi "refuse to correct behavior", without specifying which "behavior" of Jossi's needs to be "corrected". When specifically asked for diffs of the supposed violations of COI, Cla68 fails to provide any, merely asserting that "the article and article talk page and history shows some of the well-known tactics used to push POV: frequent archiving of the discussion threads, tag-team reverts, delaying tactics in discussions on the merits of sources, attacking the supposed motivations of the authors of the sources, etc." When other editors ask for actual diffs of improper behavior, Cla68 again fails to provide any, instead insisting that "If Jossi truly was a neutral edito in the Rawat and associated articles, the articles wouldn't have as much of a skewed POV as they have now because Jossi would have helped fix that. He's been editing Misplaced Pages for almost three years now (or is it longer) and should know by now how to edit a neutral article. Since it appears that he's either unable or unwilling to edit the Rawat articles neutrally, I again state a formal request that he stay away from all Rawat-related articles." In other words, regardless of the fact that Jossi does not appear to have violated any policies with his edits, he is nevertheless somehow responsible for the edits that all other parties have made to the page, which, in Cla68's opinion, have a "skewed POV".
• Feb 12, 2008. Claims Jayjg is "heavily involved" in the Gary Weiss "issue", and that he would have insight into oversighting on the article. Later says that he made the claim because he "heard somewhere" that Jayjg had oversighted material from the Gary Weiss page and talk page.
• Feb 13, 2008. Regarding the Mantanmoreland RFC, tells Georgewilliamherbert to "get a clue".
• Feb 14, 2008. After JzG comments on the Mantanmoreland RFC, accuses JzG of being part of a "cabalistic mailing list" and threatens to have "ArbCom to scrutinize actions in this affair."
• Feb 14-17, 2008. Tries to turn the Mantanmoreland RFA into a case about Cla68's own failed RFA. Singles out particular admins for no apparent reason except to pursue his personal vendettas (e.g. SlimVirgin, Crum375 and Jayjg,, JzG,, Georgewilliamherbert,).
• Feb 28, 2008. Again tries to stop Jossi from even commenting on Rawat-related talk pages, and assumes Jossi's proposal to limit edit-warring is purely self-serving.
• Feb 29, 2008. Claims Mantanmoreland was given "inappropriate support from admins", and questions whether the Mantanmoreland case should be restricted in scope and thus not discuss this.
• Mar 1, 2008. Supports a lowering of the bar for bureaucratship because "We need to keep cliques of bad faith editors from being able to torpedo the RfBs of people they don't approve of."
• Mar 1-2, 2008. Says that Jimbo e-mailed "a select mailing list" regarding COI issues with the bio of a "certain Canadian journalist", says that "The BLP of said journalist was subsequently edited by some Wikepedia.en administrators, including JoshuaZ and JzG", and asks Jimbo to comment. Then states that had there not been "a trail of edits by assumably mailing list editors like JohuaZ and JzG then there would't be an issue here." Subsequently states that "For the record, I don't believe that JoshuaZ was asked by Jimbo to fiddle with the article" but makes no mention of JzG.
• Mar 2, 2008. Creates an RFC on JzG.
• Mar 13, 2008. Claims he has "had to endure" "retaliation from several of administrator friends over the past two years."
• Mar 13, 2008. States that "Until David Gerard apologizes for blocking an entire town in Utah, for improperly blocking Piperdown, and for other personal attacks he threw during this entire sordid episode that he helped propagate, his opinion on the matter has zero credibility."
• Mar 15, 2008. Again tries to bully Jossi into staying away from even Rawat talk pages, and discussions, stating "Umm, why is Jossi still allowed to have anything to do with the Prem Rawat articles? This is past ridiculous, please tell him to stay away from them."
• Mar 24, 2008. Presents "evidence" regarding Jossi in the Prem Rawat case. The vast majority of it has nothing to do with Jossi's behavior on Misplaced Pages, instead focusing on his actions on Citizendium. The rest states Jossi shouldn't be allowed to even comment on Rawat related Talk: pages because he made two edits to the Rawat article (one in December, one in January) and because Cla68 feels Jossi had once "selectively archived" one paragraph of the Talk: page.
• Mar 25, 2008. Proposes a number of sanctions against Jossi on the Prem Rawat workshop page, including that he be desysopped, although no one (including Cla68) has presented evidence that Jossi has abused his admin tools.
• Mar 25, 2008. States that an "an editor might hypothetically try to learn the informal rules for ingratiating themselves into the "ruling clique" of Misplaced Pages in order to hopefully allow said editor a freer hand to push POV in the subject area that interests him. Said editor might even use the connections that he develops with other influential editors to modify policies and guidelines to fit his bad-faith agenda." (then modifies "the ruling clique" to "any powerful clique" When it becomes clear his references were too oblique for some to understand, he confesses to being "too coy" in his previous comment, and states "Do they abuse functions like redirects to try to hide sourced information they don't approve of?" - referring to this evidence of Matthew Stannard, claiming that Jossi did exactly that.Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Evidence#Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat
• Mar 28, 2008. User:ChrisO, based on a statement from Richard Landes in the Jerusalem Post that "There's a fight going on right now at Misplaced Pages about the nature of information accuracy, truth, history, etc", posts on WP:AN/I expressing concern that there might be an organized off-wiki campaign regarding Israel-Palestine issues, and particular noting new editors that have showed up at the Pallywood article. In response Cla68 posts "ChrisO, you might consider posting your comment to Jayjg's talk page to see if he has any comment." Note: Jayjg had not edited the Pallywood article or its Talk: page in the previous 6 months.
• Apr 2, 2008: Yet another unnecessary comment on a user talk page about Jossi and COI.
• Apr 3, 2008: Arrives at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and posts criticism of Cberlet. Cla68 has never edited any LaRouche article or talk page before this.
• May 8, 2008: Implicitly threatens on Misplaced Pages Review to out various editors with the press. Despite requests from several editors to repudiate his implicit threat, his initial responses are similarly menacing, e.g. "If the editors in question correct their behavior, then I'll gladly move on to other issues." "Like I said, if there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone." After five days of posts on his Talk: page from a half dozen editors indicating the inappropriateness of his comments, he finally apologizes "for not choosing my words more carefully."

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.