Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision

Parole

I question whether I have demonstrated conduct warranting parole or probation, and ask the arbitrators to consider whether this is too drastic a step. Dyslexic agnostic 10:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see why this and this are listed as evidence of personal attacks, and ask that they be removed. Dyslexic agnostic 10:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are instances of incivility, not necessarily personal attacks. Your vandalism to T-man's user page, as well as plenty of other evidence presented, was highly inappropriate, and indicates these are necessary. Dmcdevit·t 10:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will abide by any decision of the panel. The first link above was not intended to be uncivil (nor was the second, but I can see how it could be seen as such). The sole instance of user page vandalism to T-Man was in a moment of frustration, is seven weeks old, was instantly reverted by me, did not trigger this arbitration, and will not be repeated again. I do question your assertion of plenty of other evidence. I do not believe any further sanction will be required (I have learned my lesson), but leave it in the arbs hands. Dyslexic agnostic 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyslexic Agnostic, I note that your statement was full of sarcasm, as was your evidence incivil in itself (even in a state of conflict, dispute resolution is not an adverserial system), so I think that contributed to the matter. At most, complain about the behaviour; the point of dispute resolution is to come to a remedy, not have a showdown with your opponent. Anyway your consequence is simply parole; if good behaviour is maintained I am sure nothing will arise out of it. I however, think your parole period should be reduced. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I did find it offensive. You erase too much stuff, I think parole could do fine 4 you, I always thought you also needed guidance, especially on how to be a deletionist, no offense intended.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 08:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

I suppose I understand the parole re future personal attacks. But why the probation re inappropriate editing? When have I ever in the past edited a wiki page inappropriately? Dyslexic agnostic 20:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't and won't edit a page inappropriately, the effect of such an injunction will be zero. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right; however, the stigma of a probation should be based on evidence. I assume the arbitrators make a distinction between past conduct re personal attacks and past conduct re editing appropriately. Dyslexic agnostic 20:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query re jurisdiction

Why are Dmcdevit and Fred Bauder even commenting... they are not listed as arbitrators at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic!!! Dyslexic agnostic 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Arbitrators are on the case unless recused or away. Acceptance of a case does not require all Arbitrators to agree, and the list of Arbitrators there is simply those who placed an opinion as to accept/deny/recuse/other. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Dyslexic agnostic 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T-Man ban

I also want to state that I think a six-month ban of T-Man is highly excessive, and further it is beyond the jurisdiction of this body at this time. His current one-month ban should be left, after which he is of course subject to scrutiny, and I hope would not conduct further personal attacks. A six-month ban all at once is unfair. I thought this was MY arbitration (see my name in the title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision?) It would be procedurally unfair to ban T-man without him having the opportunity to defend himself; he didn't know he faced sanction at all in these proceedings! His comments were dedicated to showing why I should be banned or restricted. I think it is very important that this ban NOT be put in place, since T-man is entitled to make answer and defence. Dyslexic agnostic 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have a dispute with yourself, but with T-Man. Whether he is here or not would not change the evidence of what he has done. Fred Bauder 02:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I too think a six-month ban is excessive (although my understanding of ArbCom precedent says that even though Dyslexic Agnostic's name is on the case, the ArbCom's authority extends to any parties involved). It is clear that T-man was incivil, made personal attacks, and failed to assume good faith. However, it is also clear, at least to me, that part of his failure to assume good faith (which led to the incivility and personal attacks) stems from a simple grammatical misunderstanding. I only just noticed this, and it probably belongs on the Evidence page instead of here.

In this diff, Dyslexic Agnostic writes, "I didn't edit the episode at Legends of the Dark Knight because I didn't know that TV episodes can have their own page." It is clear to me from the context that by this he means, "I removed content about the TV episode from the page Legends of the Dark Knight not because I was unaware that TV episodes could have their own pages, but for a different reason." However, T-man's (slightly bewildering) presentation of evidence here shows that he interpreted Dyslexic Agnostic's remark as meaning "I removed content about the TV episode because I didn't know that TV episodes could have their own page," which is why he's presenting Dyslexic Agnostic's edits to Doctor Who pages as evidence of bad faith. In other words, a great deal of the rancor stemmed from a simple misunderstanding, probably influenced by T-man's English skills. (Does Spanish have the same rules about double negatives that English does?)

I think that T-man can be helped to understand that his failure to assume good faith was an error, and that his personal attacks were out of line. I suggest that one month (in addition to his current one-month ban) should be a sufficient cooling-off period for him, followed of course by the suggested probation. If it helps, I'm willing to serve as a mentor for T-man, who seems to hold me in inexplicably high esteem anyway. (I slightly regret not having been firmer with him as I saw him digging himself deeper into the pit he currently occupies.) Although I don't think I'd have time to copyedit his every contribution, I would be willing to keep an eye on his behavior (especially in edit summaries and on talk pages) to help him recognize when he's being uncivil or overly stubborn. I ask the Committee to consider the amelioration of T-man's behavior at List of villains as evidence that when treated with patience and good will, his behavior can improve. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen by T-man's recent comments in the Workshop, he now understands that his previous behavior was out of line. The personal attack parole should be a sufficient remedy. There should be no need for a longer ban, provided that he understands that DA was not stalking him, but correcting the syntax of his edits. Robert McClenon 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally in favour of this. I have talked with T-Man, and I acknowledged and apologized for acts on my part which inflamed the situation. I hope T-man and I can rebuild our relationship in the future, but for now I want to see him as part of the wikipedia team again. Go team! Dyslexic agnostic 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double negatives

Double negation is positive in Spanish, I think it is sometimes used for rethoric purposes. From my understanding in English it is considered uneducated. However I started assuming bad faith after seeing DA's comments on Dr. Who related articles and it is clear no vanalism is done in good faith. Before this he told me on the LODN that the episode of the same name wasn't worth having a section, so after my later developements I felt he hide info from me on purpose. The episode was worth even more than having a section, it was woth having it's own page! That's were I got mad. I stand my ground but I'm sorry anyways. I also have to be thankful for you both. I do not look up for any further interaction with DA, but at leas I'm glad and thankful to see he is a good sport. I'll remember this.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double negation in English is either positive for rhetorical purposes or uneducated. Robert McClenon 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my 2 cents

in my dealings with t-man i have found that genrally given some support and encourgment he can be a valuable contributor (like dyslexic) to the comic book articles, although i requested the one month ban i think mentorship with another user may be better than banning t-man for 6 months (unfortunatley im to busy to offer to mentor, nor am i experinced in this), he does seem to respond really well to shanel tho Benon 15:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind mentoring him. I would agree that alot of misunderstanding comes from his abilities with English. He has asked me a few times to define words or to explain things to him. He has also admitted to me that he angers easily, so perhaps a mentorship would help him in this aspect as well.--Shanel 01:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jusdging by some of t-mas comments (whos now un-blocked) he wouldnt mind shanela as a mentor and "monitor" i belive this will serve much better than blocking himBenon 16:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally excited about it. It is weird she is more than 6 years younger than me, but she's 12 older in maturity and skills, hahaha. I just love her!! I almost trust her blindly.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it appears that the arbitration comitte wish to ban the t-man from editing for anything up to 6months. i was under the impression that (un-officaly at least) we dont block pepole when they stop making disruptive edits. t-man has willingly taken advice from other parties here and the dirutption appears to have stopped. Both the t-man and dyslexic seem to agree to disagree on there disputes.

the fact these two have stopped is, hopefully a satisfactory resolution. of course things could change and thats why we have parole. however blocking a contributor with a great knowldge of a subject isnt helping the project but harming it (id be saying the same for weither party here). T-man was having trouble with something earlier. insted of making a diruptive edit and getting frustrated so he asked shanel, shanel explained it to him and all was well. This would appear to be proof mentorship would help to keep the situation diffused.

I relaise its problay not my place or wikiettiquite to write something like that to the arbitration comitte but i think it had to be saidBenon 12:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate raises the 2 cents by a penny

I agree that mentorship is the right answer here. I would suggest that one of the mentors should be fluent in both English and Spanish. One of the reasons why T-man's edits have resulted in controversy is his difficulties with English. A mentor who could communicate with him in Spanish would be helpful. Robert McClenon 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday

Bye everyone! I am off to visit T-man in Mexico. OK, just kidding, I am going to Sin City for a few days of R&R. See you on my return! Dyslexic agnostic 07:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]