Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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/w/index.php?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.

The 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 voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] ALL COMMENTS EVER DONE BY DA ON T-MAN'S USER TALK PAGE

HERE: --> User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow/Oblivion Box

[edit] Evidence presented by benon

[edit] First assertion

Firstly I assert that personal attacks have been flying left, right and centre between these two users :- [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

There have been very harsh words in all of those thrown around, and generally not benefiting Wikipedia. When I mediated there was a point where it appeared to have done the trick (Shanel and I had not realised the extent of this feud at the time) [15]

Benon 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second assertion

wiki-stalking has been taking place, at least on some level [16] [17] supported by a previous arbcom case ruling:-


In the matter of Cool Cat (talk • contribs) (aka User:Coolcat) — a case decided on October 5, 2005 — the ArbCom voted that wikistalking was unacceptable in the following circumstances: It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy. There are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users...Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking). The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

also by comapring the articles each has edited nearly 100% of the time wihn around 36 hours the other turns up.

[edit] request for a small clarification from the arbitrators

I am getting a bit confused by arbitration policy: are Shanel and I, as third parties, also having our action scrutinised by the arbitration committee or just T-man and Dyslexic Agnostic?

Thanks, Benon 05:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a note to the arbitrators, T-man is seeking an advocate before adding his statement. Benon 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications

My opinion:

And someone better recomend me an advocate I can trust... I'm sinking and my freaking ADHD is making me dig deeper my own tomb.
You did good and nobody is doing anything for ya. And if someone dares to talk bad about Shanel I'll loose all my faith in wikipedia editors.

--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Gillespee

[edit] First assertion

I see no evidence of wikistalking in this case on the part of Dyslexic Agnostic. True, he does have overlapping interests with T-man, but Dyslexic began editting many of the pages first.

DA first editted the Superman article on October 29.[18] T-man first arrived on December 21.[19]
DA first editted the Batman article on November 27, 2005.[20] T-man's first edit was on December 23, almost a full month later.[21]
Even on the hotly contested Enemies of Batman article which brought about this arbitration, DA began editing article 19 days [22]before T-man.[23]

DA did make one minor edit[24] to the thread T-Man has editted most (and before DA), the List of villains, but that hardly constitutes wikistalking.

DA did admit to checking up on T-Man here[25] but according to my understanding of the Wikipedia:Harassment policy wikistalking doesn't include "checking up on an editor to fix errors." I don't think DA was attempting to harass T-man by following him around, I think he was trying to fix T-Man's edits which, due to admitted limited English proficiency[26], are often difficult to understand.

[edit] Evidence presented by T-man

[edit] 1st assertion:DA AS A VANDAL

Exhibit T1-a. 12 consecutive acts of vandalism: Alright... I apologize for the user page prank... a moment of weakness. I am NOT stalking him, just monitoring his efforts on Superman and Batman related pages. he doesn't get that his changes are without consensus, and are NOT improvements. I am more lenient on the sub articles, but the main ones have to maintain a certain quality. I will keep reverting his blanket changes, but will work with him on any reasonable efforts to improve
-Dyslexic agnostic 00:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Exhibit T1-a,Exhibit T1-a'


My talk page:
1. Exhibit T1-b: Here DA is vandalizing my own talk page, besides cynism, which I can't take (because of my temper and in, that's the kind of behavior that have made me lose my temper and insult him in the pastHe claims I did if Because of my edits on Batman. Needless to say that was a waste of words, links and time on his part, since that's not considered vandalism and T1-b is an invation and a disrespect to my rights to have my own space.
2. Exhibit T1-c
My User page:
1. Exhibit T1-d: Here was the thing that started it all.
2. Exhibit T1-e: Here there is one that I didn't knew 'til todaywhich makes his vandalism a current issue. He said he vandalized me the last time a "MONTH ago". I'm loving the fact that I get to point he is lying again (Exhibit T0-a).
Notice I don't recall messing with him in this way.
An insult is NOT vandalism as a reply to actions like the above or a cynic comment from the author. Good faith has a limit. We are not dealing with utopic people, and we're not even close. There is several evidences of me assuming good faith on DA. But I'm no Ned Flanders or Mother Teresa. I'm a good person, but it's not easy to always believe the person who did Exhibit T1-c, Exhibit T1-d and Exhibit T1-e is delating and obsesively monitoring me and calling me and my words things in "WP:good faith". And that he really wants to be my "budd" and "work with me".
  • NOTE: Evidences agaisnt me showing my "obscene"* insults MUST be NEUTRALIZED in my favour when my "obscene" mistake was a direct cause-effect consecuence of the above mentioned actions from DA's part.
* Also notice: I did misspelled on purpose the f word. Not that it should matter. Properly said with a good reason, should not only ok, but it should be taken as a sign that something is not ok. We are not in a convent, people. We've all used the word at least when it is worth ussing it. We should not use it Carlin style here, but when it's right said words usualy screamed like wolf, "fire!" or bomb should come to the mind of the reader.
I really ment it. I was screaming "BACK OFF!" and "HELP!", and none of you cared. All people like Khaoswork (who I deeply resent) saw was "obscenity", they confessed to their closest priest for the "sin of reading it" and though I was some punk. So here we are all now, a couple of insinuated fuqs later, counting my "fuqs" to see if you should burn me like some Faust. But that's onli my opinion

[edit] 2nd assertion: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE ANYBODY SEEN DYSLEXIC AGNOSTIC FIXING MY DAMN STUPID FOREIGN VERVOSE PROSE?

...As I said.

[edit] 3rd assertion: DA has virtually NO KNOLEDGE ON THE TOPICS of the pages we clash the most

. He doesn't know about the topics he usualy blind reverts (a practice that is not allowed, and knowing so, he still chooses to repeat systematically):

  • Exhibit T3-a How is anybody to asume that the articles, wikipedia or myself are not jokes to him. I think we are this guy's mocking hobbie.
  • Exhibit T3-b Here I get to show you that I did reach DA for help. Of coure since, as evidenced above, DA barely knows about the details of the info I posted him, and he knew a mistaken edit would evidence him as ignorant of the topic ehe refused. He didn't wan't to get "burned" by a sure wrong edit he'd have made then. However, days later he though he had the cappability to do it, and instead of reaching for help as I did, he somehow, out of the blue, got the nerve to put the piece of crap that serves as my Exhibit T3-c directly on the Enemies of Batman Page.
This was his first short version of my writing; he wrote 4 huge erros and one minor:
Batman's foes form one of the most distinctive rogues galleries in comics. In the 1930s and 1940s some of the most familiar Batman villains evolved. First among these is The Joker, being thief, clown, pracical joker, killer, and insane. Other key villians include Catwoman, the Penguin, Two-Face, The Riddler, The Scarecrow, Hugo Strange and The Mad Hatter, (minor)
Other well-known villains emerged in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s including the Man-Bat,Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Ra's Al Ghul and daughter Talia, Killer Croc(1), Black Mask(2). The Ventriloquistemerged in the 1980s, as did Bane(3), Joker's assistant Harley Quinn(4). Recently, new enemies have appeared, such as Hush, David Cain (father of Cassandra Cain, the new Batgirl), and a new Red Hood (in fact former Robin Jason Todd apparently back from the dead). These new enemies, like Bane, know Batman´s true identity and threaten to use this against him.


I copyedited and wrote in the summary: (bane and HQ (ho is mr. j lover indeed) are from the early 90's. Also: no need to keep it short. Don't make this short when editing.)...
His answer: (look, if you have a fact to corrrect, CORRECT IT, don;t just add your unreadable droning. I changed Bane to the 1990s (if that's even true) just for you.) An he left the article with still 3 errors:
Other well-known villains emerged in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s including the Man-Bat,Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Ra's Al Ghul and daughter Talia, Killer Croc (1), Black Mask (2). The Ventriloquist emerged in the 1980s, as did Joker's assistant Harley Quinn (3). Recently, new enemies have appeared, such as Bane, Hush, David Cain (father of Cassandra Cain, the new Batgirl), and a new Red Hood (in fact former Robin Jason Todd apparently back from the dead). These new enemies know Batman´s true identity and threaten to use this against him.


I copyedited and wrote in the summary: (dude! Harley is from the 90's that's basic. I did some copyedit, but still needs more. Don't blind revert)
His answer: (T-Man up to his old bad editing tricks again... i reverted, but changed Harley Quinn to the 1990s. What, no Batman enemies created in the 1980s?) (I'm the one doing the bad editing tricks again?) An he left the article with still 2 errors:
Other well-known villains emerged in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s including the Man-Bat,Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Ra's Al Ghul and daughter Talia, Killer Croc(1), Black Mask (2). The Ventriloquist emerged in the 1980s. In the 1990s and 2000s, new enemies have appeared, such as The Joker's assistant Harley Quinn,Bane, Hush, David Cain (father of Cassandra Cain, the new Batgirl), and a new Red Hood (in fact former Robin Jason Todd apparently back from the dead). These new enemies know Batman´s true identity and threaten to use this against him (still 3 errors, he put HQ in the "1990s and 2000s", but by doing so, he implied that she knows Batman's identity).


I copyedited and wrote in the summary : (Don't blind revert. the intro is useless; it's too short and to plane: If the intro is going to be so short why to put it at all?? Stop blind reverting. Copyedit, and longer please)
His answer: Dyslexic agnostic (revert wholesale bad edit, but moved Black Mask and Killer Croc to 1980s (baby steps, T-Man, baby steps!)) And he left the article with only a minor error in the 1st paragraph.
Any Batman fan knows that stuff. But why bother if you don't know the info, anyways?
He claims others like Haiduc reverted "insanity i did". How ever notice how I you can get a Batman expert, I'm sure no fact from that edit was wrong. Also notice how the very first word Haiduc added was "generaly" before "Batman does not kill". This means Haiduc's knoledge is questionable. I just re-read myself. I probabbly made the article a bit longer, but notice how Haiduc (also a non-native English speaker) and others like to write long lines on unknown names in the world of Batman like a Wertham, a Christopher Lee (apparently your next door nobody who made his College thesis on Batwoman), Batwoman and non.redhead version Batgirl you don't know about if you are not a really, really, really unlikely hardhardcore. Fan. Did anyone notice how little do they talked about the red head Batgirl you known from the Arnold Schwartzeneger movie or the 60s series? Whatevah'.

[edit] Fourth assertion: Dyslexic Agnostic AS A WIKI-STALKER

  1. User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow#New relationship for the new year Exhibit T4-aLook, T-Man, it is not my goal to get you down or to dampen your excitement for wikipedia. I admit to a tendency to be critical, and sarcasm may not be the best way to try to get my points across. Reverting you is NOT the first thing I do each day (it's the third) (See! The sarcasm is too deeply engrained...), but I do check on you because I know your edits are sometimes too out there for me
  1. Exhibit T4-b: DA following me to Khaosworks's talk
  2. user talk:cleared as filed/2005#heeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!!!! Exhibit T4-c: DA following me to cleared as filed's talk
  3. User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 1#hey, rowe! Exhibit T4-a: DA following me to Josiah Rowe's talk
It's very hard to determinate that he is stalking me. Right now I learned hedid some minor edits in the Enemies of Batman and Batman pages. He does goodwork by fixing links, spelling and stuff like that. But he call himself wikipedia: deletionist and erases other people works. When I fist met him he was trying to downsize the Superman article. An awarded page, that was heavy in terms of memory space, but was well sectioned. Where does he get the guts to mess with an awarded page just because of his preferences and write material I've proven he doesn't know about? Nobody opens an encyclopedia to learn as little as possible, with summarized facts that somebody got wrong because he doesn't like when the info is too much. The perfect article page, wikipedia clearly states that articles should not lack of details, but when the details are too much, the section is ready to become an article. This is the policy I've always followed. DA is stopping this evolution process I consider natural.
and he doesn't learn
  1. Exhibit T4-d. Notice how I got to a page I never visited before and just 35 minutes later the first person who replies again with his apathic pov was not other but obsessive stalker Dyslexic Agnostic. Creepy!!! I really hope he is Canadian, I really do.

[edit] The pages I followed him to on the week of - - - to - - -

  1. Exhibit T5-@: Limited series and now merged pages. Also a show of his lack of knoledge on the topic's he edits. Not like I'm some sort of supreme authority of the comics knoledge, but at least I know where I stand. If his knoledge of the topics is so evidently poor where does he gets the guts to consciently make up terms like meta-series (comics) or stating "It is unknow if 6-9 issues limited series are miniseries or maxiseries" (could it be becouse those are regular limited series: Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhh) without sources and impose his missunderstood minimalism, (I'm an Architect, he is not going to explain me what the word for more with less is) by deleting valuable info.
  2. Legends of the Dark Knight, where I spoted him erasing stuff T3-a doesn't aloud to have, not by that time even if he really "became a fan". Which would Imply

[edit] 5th. assertion: THE T-MAN ALWAYS, EDITS IN GOOD FAITH. DA DOESN'T

DA does not edit (classic blind reverse+insults on the summary combo) my edits on good faith like I do on every single article I touch. He (Exibits T1-a to T1-e) doesn't have respect or love for info and knoledge like I do (I realize how silly it looks when you take in mind I'm talking about comic boocs info and knoledge, but I have to make a case, here. Hehe. Still, no info or "deletionist" (exhibit T5-a) edit should come from the guts).


Exibits T1-a to T1-e already established DA's tendencies to vandalism. Making his still recurrent to present-day, anti-wikipedic behavior of blind reversing my edit's leaving insults on the summaries (can someone link those like billions exhibis T5-@@1) very likely to be acts of bad faith. I'm using"Wikipedia: Don't blind revert" as Exibit T5-a, can someone quote me one of the many times I showing DA that link in the past before I realized he was never going to read it, as Exibit T5-@@2?


I also know he knows about the Dr. Who detailed articles per every single episode. This Exhibit T5-b, which shows he knows how detailed can articles about details be, leads me to believe his merger and delating of the bat-embargo proposals were done in bad faith. It also comes in conflict with Exhibit T5-c:
uh, and i've a personal favor as a frien to ask you. please re vote on the merge thing. You started the voting back when you were doing this Wikipedia:Harassment. C'mon man, those were other times, give me some credit now, please. How would you feel if I do the same to you with your first article?? Vote don't, please. C'mon, Bud!, Do it for me...the T-man. The chaos dude hates me since day one*, way before I met you. He is going to act in bad faith, I feel it in my gut. Please, revote. For me. I'm begging here.--T for Trouble-maker 07:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't... I don't see why this Bat-embargo is so important! It only applies to DC animated series, which are not important in themselves. Dyslexic agnostic 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
--But he did knew it was important enough!! Because of T5-b!! He was just acting as the big sensoring authoritarian jerk he is. All I did to expand projecs like the Bat-Embargo, Justice League Unlimited or the Enemies of Batman, I did without knowing there was the Dr. Who references I could have used as a templates. But my 2 biggest censorers did and played as if they didn't know. And apparently there are also Buffy, Angel references, so there CAN be episode articles of stupid series besides pop-cult gigants like, from my understanding, Dr. Who is (I'm guessing, Star Treek-big?). He also erased Info about "Legends of the Dark Knight" episode knowing we can do articles about episodes (Exhibit T5-b)!! Do you start getting the picture why do I insist so much on DA being cynical?


He is acusing me about this: again and again and again, and inappropriate, but exibit T3-a and T3-b already established that he ignores most things about those characters. And that makes him likely to ignore the very sugestive material by Bruce Timm, creator of Batman: The Animated Series and the Harley Queen character, on Exhibit T5-d] and that in the popular best-seller Hush story-ark written by popular Jeph Loeb, published on Batmam #608 to 619, the same character said she (...) and Poison Ivy had a nice thing going on before Batman took the last one to justice again (Exhibit T5-e). His acusation was: "Some more explicit ambiguosity in the Bat-Mythos", which was completely and intentionally' (?) unencyclopedic. I call that Exhibit T0-b evidence of him lying and insulting readers intelligence again , because I think he knew better than that.
Everything I did to that section until I gave up, was in good faith. I do think those described the issue better. That Wertham guy is actually homophobic and he stated Batman was a pedophilic to THEN imply he and robin are living a gay fantasy... And DA critiziseme for caring too much about details. That issue should indeed be fully developed, but since Wertham is not even close to the first thing tha pops up in one's mind when thinking of Batman, it'd make an interesting link, but is wasting the Batman's article space. The section is not being impartial enough from my POV. It's sensoring the fact that DC has not gone on record backing any of that. Specially the Batwoman part. So, as you see, even though there IS a possiblilty I'm wrong my intentions were good. I also provided lately some oficial quotes and reserched facts on the Batwoman case, all in a single mini-line , but apparently that wasn't good enough for Simmel, owner of the Batman article so I let go... As you see Nothing was done in bat faith to my favorite superhero. I wrote my basic thoughts on the issue all over again not to discuss about them once more, but to prove I didn't toy with the article as DA has toyed with some articles only to mess with me for his amusement.
*Khaosworks, my other censor, as shown on Exhibit T5-b, also knows how detailed info about tv series should be. KW is WP:Civil, but his authoritarian style, coldness and lack of kindness and tolerance makes me not like him. Notice how on that very exhibit, there is also friction between him and DA because of the same reasons.


[edit] My replies to commets done on this page

Here I explain how I see some coments done by other people while providing evidence:

  • POV on Gillespee's last line: He knows better than that. Also: That was probbably the last time I explained I'm obviously not a native English speaker, but it was not even close to the first. Another pov: People with comments like that are encouraging hate issues against North America and England among foreigners. Keep in mind that not so many people over the world love your culture, languaje and idioms and are as open minded as myself when it comes to undertand, forgive and forget fool errors like that. Gillespee just sliped (my povagain), but DA... And to think he is Canadian! "Trudeau would be so proud!" Please no need to reply here. I already forgot this, don't make me remember.
  • POV on Toffile's observations: He is right I do have trouble drawing the line between replying and a personal attack. I do ignore the criteria. I have not read WP:NPA yet. How come I try never to ofend other editors on the summaries like DA or certain guy who seems to be an authorithy on a war with everyone on the history page of the Batman article.


  • Reply to DA's Assertions:
I did reply to most of DA's comments. But, since most of those comments were obvious half-truths and lies to appeal to the readers (and it's my belief that nobody buys them in the first place, anyways), I decided to move those replies to make this page shorter. If someone need clarifications on DA's cynic comments and insults to the readers inteligence (the same kind that in the past made me lose my temper), he can use the link above.

[edit] Evidence Line

Here is a table I'll be working on to show the most notable edits and comficts in order.

Prettytable example
User Date Page Action
100 Cake Superman NO!
Wikipedia ^______^ Batman Batman
Moo 1.618033989 Enemies of Batman Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 User Talk:T-man the Wise Scarecrow Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 DC Animated Universe Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 Justice League Unlimited Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 Scarecrow (comics) Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 The Bat-embargo Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 List of Villains Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 List of limited series Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 Limited series Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 Legends of the Dark Knight Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 [[User Talk:]] Pay your bills
Moo 1.618033989 Enemies of Batman Pay your bills

[edit] Negotiation

Even though I think of him as a cynic person obsessed with me, DA is not the Devil. He shouln't be blocked. I think we have all alredy learned from this unfortunated situation. I just don't want him doing any "monitoring". So, I propose this:
I. You block him from:
a. My user page.
b. My talk page.
c. My contributions list or any page that alouds him to see my activities.
II. For the same purposes, he is forbiden to have thise articles on his watch list:
a. Batman
b. Enemies of Batman
c. List of villains
d. Scarecrow (comics)
e. DC animated universe
  • NOTE: He can keep links from those pages on his own page. To get to those articles quickly. I just don't want him to use those pages to monitore me anymore.
If he acepts these terms, I'll start assuming good faith in him and ask everybody to do the same. I now know how to provide vandalism evidence quickly with good efficiency, and I know what happens de facto if I insinuate or say the "scary, mean and bad" word fuq.
I do think that somebody monitoring me is a great idea, only not by someone who acts like DA has. Monitoring should be an available service. I'd love someone with actual knoledge of my areas and writing skills like the great Josiah Rowe has. Or maybe some one who may not know about the topics but has the kindness and talent of Shanel Kalicharan. One should be able to choose his monitor.

[edit] Evidence presented by Toffile

I am a little saddened that this case was actually accepted by the ArbCom. I would like to point out that since the beginnings of the arbitration began, T-Man and DA have been working better together. It will probably continually linger in my mind that an RfC would have worked out better, since the chances are the two would have solved their differences without having sanctions.

I have had little interaction with T-Man. I have had some more interaction with Dyslexic agnostic, however. I have no real interest in the Enemies of Batman article, I'm more concerned with the Rogues' Galley of the Flash. However, in what I have seen from T-Man, he does strike me as a bit of an enthusiastic editor. However he also does seem to have lots of trouble involving WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and has also repeatedly inserted debated material into an article. He reminds me a bit of Gabrielsimon, to be honest. I can say that DA has not been a perfect angel, and has broken WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL a few times as well.

[edit] First assertion

The only assertion I will make is that they make personal attacks against eachother. There is a long collection of evidence of incivility and personal attacks here:[27]. Almost every entry from December 26th deals with T-Man in some way or another. This is about as far as I can go with evidence, I'm fairly busy with college work. (No rest for the engineering major). --Toffile 06:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • As I now see what has transpired since I wrote this, T-mans is really reminding me of GabrielSimon, minus the 3RR violations.--Toffile 01:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Dyslexic agnostic

[edit] First assertion

I have read T-Man's comments above. I DO NOT accept his solution. I should be allowed to "monitor" all the pages I have always "monitored"... what have I done in my edits to any of those pages, or any pages at all, that are not improvements to Wikipedia, or at least bona fide attempts to do same. If I am no longer permitted to fix grammar and spelling on those pages perpetrated by T-Man, then someone else has the added responsibility. And, I have worthwhile things to contribute to all of those pages. I DO NOT FOLLOW T-MAN... I see his edits on MY WATCHLIST! What do I have to do to prove this? WHAT? HE FOLLOWS ME! Sorry to get excited, but I have already explained all this. Just how long does this arbitration process go on? PLEASE give us a verdict/judgment/sentence, whatever is it that you do. I will edit what I please, when I please, until I am shut down. I will, as always, seek the consensus of other editors for major changes, and work with reasonable editors to come to a middle ground. Ask those of us who had to deal (and still are dealing) with T-Man's edits to the homosexual section of Batman. Yes, I messed with T-Man's page ONCE, a whole MONTH ago, and never again. Unfortunately, to defend myslef in this process, I must raise issues best left unsaid, as I truly believe things were going to get much better before Benon's interference. But I must, so here we go.

[edit] Second assertion

T-Man claims above that I vandalized his talk page when I warned about vandalism on 25 December 2005. Fine, if T-man wants to talk about what he did on 25 December 2005, we can certainly do that. I urge the panel to review all actions that day by both T-Man and myself. How can anyone really think this warning was improper, when T-Man did this and this and this, all completely without consensus and in fact expressly against what was on the talk page. Maybe he thought these were legitimate changes; any casual reader would have assumed it was vandalism, as I did, and sent the warning. Even others like Haiduc reverted these changes, calling them "insanity", and tried to restore what T-Man kept deleting, over and over and over. STOP!, shouted DrachenFyre, but to no avail. He blindly erased my other changes with no thought to it. Then he changed tactics by adding a section entitled "Some more explicit ambiguosity in the Bat-Mythos", which was completely and intentionally unencyclopedic, and added it again and again and again, even adding completely inappropriate imagery in an attempt to make a point, which is not permitted. Those are the facts, with evidence attached. Please review the Batman-homosexual discussions on the Batman talk page to understand how out of line those edits were. Unfortunately, this is not over... see here for T-man's continued attempts. The Bat-embargo page is voted down TWICE for deletion, most recently here... does this stop him? NO! He creates this so he can try to bring it back a third time!

Those are my points. I stress that I mean T-man no ill will, but I guess to job here is to rebut his allegations, so I am doing so. i am frankly more interested in going back to editing though. Dyslexic agnostic 06:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third assertion

I thought it would be useful to consider Talk:Superman#Article length (the current version is here is case it gets archived or changed. This was how T-Man and I met, with him criticizing what I felt were quite well done edits to bring Superman within recommended size, by spinning off subarticles, all as per Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Long article layout. I was quickly accused thereafter of all kinds of bad behaviour, just because he thought that any changes to Superman would be like putting "lipstick on the Mona Lisa just because you think it'd be better". T-man set the tone for any future dealings with his insults and rudeness; I admit to having responded in kind on occasion. You will see that he accuses me of "stalking" at that point, even though I had never interacted with the man before. THIS is the origins of "stalking"... and that's why I should be banned from pages T-Man edits? Please... let's look at the facts, not unsourced allegations. Dyslexic agnostic 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth asserion

New developments: T-Man left this on my talk page, complaining that I left this at the Infinite Crisis talk page in reply to his comment there. I am a frequent editor on Infinite Crisis ([28], [29], [30], [31] to show only the most recent), yet once again T-Man shows up and claims some kind of ownership: ironically he says this to me: "Notice how creepy it is to go to a page I've never been before make some coments, and have your damn apathic opinion some minutes later". Firstly, I don't see why my comment is apathetic. Secondly, "I" am the one creeped out by T-Man following ME to this page, when he has never edited here before. I don't want T-Man talking to me at all, yet he continues to do so. When will this end? Dyslexic agnostic 15:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth assertion

Legends of the Dark Knight: Does anyone actually believe this is an improvement over this? Using the "=level one=" header to create two articles in one? The comic book is a long running series; the animated show reference is ONE episode. It is clearly mentioned in (over)sufficient detail already in the article (should be trimmed), and no one else has been flocking to expand it.

T-man is really stretching to find questionable activity... is THIS the kind of thing that the arbitration committee wants to dedicate their time to? PLUS, check out the edit history... T-Man shows up on this page for the FIRST TIME immediately after I edit it... I think we can lay to rest the question of who the stalker here really is. Dyslexic agnostic 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to T-man's replies

T-Man replied above to some of my assertions. Here is my rebuttul:

  • First assertion: I use my watchlist, not my user page, to monitor pages. I am not monitoring his activity.
  • Second assertion (prior to T-man's removal): Nice language, do you kiss your momma with that mouth? For those who missed it (T-Man removed it after I commented, here it is in all its glory: PROFANITY ALERT.
  • Second assertion (current form): I agree with T-man on this: I have fixed T-Man's grammar and spelling on numerous occasions, as have many other editors. The combined loss in creative effort and time must be very large.
  • Fourth assertion: I monitor JLU (not T-Man), as I have become a fan of the animated series. I simply copyedited a section... I did not erase his edits, but there were about 100 edits by him, so I am sorry if I did so by accident (evidence please). I would ask T-man to stop with the "scary" claims... I am 1000s of kilometres away and not interested in him in the least.
  • Unfortunately, T-man is currently modifying his comments up above to make it very difficult to read what came when. He usually does this, and in addition to his already poor command of the English language, ts makes it very hard to see what was said and what was replied to. Therefore, please consider my comments above to be in reply to an earlier version of T-man's comments. Dyslexic agnostic 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Mistake

T-Man claims I made a mistake doing an edit. However, rather than simply fixing the mistake, as i have fixed hundreds of T-Man's typos, he chooses to repeat this over and over and over... therefore I want to address the mistake.

I didn't actually make a factual mistake. What I did was try to correct what I considered practically illegible verbiage. The wording of Enemies of Batman was as found here. I did a cleanup attempt here, which left the article suggesting that Bane first showed up in the 1980s. T-Man noticed this on the same day, but instead of just correcting the dates, he reverted his whole poorly written article back, despite the fact that I and others had done copyedits, posted a cleanup notice, fixed typos,etc. I then reverted to the consensus version, except that I fixed the Bane "error", here.
So, now I get to hear from what must be the tenth time about my grand error. I guess T-Man believes that rampant misspelling, poor grammar and sentence structure, all these are perfectly fine (because SOMEONE will clean up after him), but that a factuall error is a cardinal sin punishable, figuratively, by death, but actually, in wikipedia, by lifetime expulsion. Dyslexic agnostic 06:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective?

T-Man has exceeded 100 edits on this arbitration page, each one a personal attack on me. What does this say? Dyslexic agnostic 05:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My recent efforts

Unfortunately my recent attempts to smooth the situation between myself and T-man have led to the opposite outcome; namely, that T-man has such a negative view of me and a distrust of my word that he lashes out, and as a result has received a further block. This was not my intention, and if he is reading, I apologize. I REALLY REALLY want to try to fix the relationship, but am not sure I know where to start. I will, as suggested, stop leaving messages on this or any subject on T-man's talk page, until the tension can be reduced and the trust somehow rebuilt. Dyslexic agnostic 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am under attack!!!

I am under TOTAL PERSONAL ATTACK, here and here and here. Despite the 48-hour ban, he continues to use his own page to attack me, now attacking my credibility and professionalism!!! I ask for someone to intervene and stop it, and remove the attacks from history! Please! Dyslexic agnostic 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked T-man at first for 48 hours, but since he continued to personally attack Dyslexic agnostic, I lengthened his block to one week. See the block log. --Shanel 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have further extended it to one month and protected his user talk page for further attacks on DA. NSLE (T+C) 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Josiah Rowe

I was reluctant to get involved in this matter, but since comments on my user page have been cited as evidence I suppose it's my duty to give my perspective on the issues and personalities involved. I will be primarily focussing on T-Man, since I have had more dealings with him than with Dyslexic Agnostic. Much of this may seem unrelated, but I think it illustrates T-Man's strengths and weaknesses as a contributor, and may be helpful in showing a larger perspective.

I came to know T-Man through his edits to List of villains, which I worked on a fair amount last year (but have neglected recently). Shortly after T-Man's first edit of that page, he began a major reorganization. The page had previously been mostly an alphabetical list of fictional characters regarded as villains, and T-Man decided it would be better to organize the characters by their medium of origin [32]. (Although at this time T-Man did not discuss the major changes he was initiating on the article's talk page, he did make several comments about the page's content on the page itself [33], [34], [35].) At that time Turnstep and I were the most active editors on the page, and in the absence of discussion we both reverted his changes to the old alphabetical organization. After some tedious back-and-forth reversions, T-Man finally joined the discussion on the talk page [36]. Despite his variable English, occasional brashness [37], [38] and insults to Turnstep [39] (not to mention indirectly referring to Turnstep and me as "Hitler and Mussolini" [40], which he himself called a "little prank" [41] ), we were able eventually to reach a consensus that the page should be reorganized by medium, in the manner T-Man had originally initiated. In short, T-Man had a good idea to improve the page, but at the time he did not communicate effectively with other editors, which caused undue frustration and misunderstandings. These misunderstandings were exacerbated by T-Man's writing style, which was somewhat abrasive and occasionally difficult to understand.

However, once he got the hang of using talk pages and working towards consensus, T-Man made some very valuable contributions to the page. He did the lion's share of the reorganization, which I think has made the page a more useful index. Although he did continue to show a short fuse and made occasional personal attacks on the talk page [42] or on the page itself in hidden text [43], over time T-Man's behavior improved, and his style became less abrasive. He also continued to show an admirable enthusiasm and energy.

I have had fewer interactions with dyslexic agnostic. I am a regular editor of pages related to Doctor Who and an occasional editor of comics-related pages, and had seen his edits in both contexts, and had had no signficant problems with him or his edits. I was vaguely aware that there was bad blood between him and T-Man, since I had T-Man's user talk page on my watchlist from prior conversations. On December 30, T-Man asked for my opinion on the problems he was having. I took a brief look at Enemies of Batman and a few other pages, and came up with this response. Shortly thereafter, I noticed that Dyslexic Agnostic had made what appeared to me to be a good-faith effort to improve relations with T-Man and explain his edits on a rational, not personal basis [44]. Shortly after that, D.A. made a (well-intentioned) proposal about article naming at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who which was not well received by project members. D.A. perceived one comment by Khaosworks as an insult and bristled a bit, and I attempted to clarify the comment and relevant arguments. (The entire conversation is here.) Following up on that small incident, I posted a comment on D.A.'s talk page [45], making sure that he was all right with the resolution of the Doctor Who article naming conversation. At this point, I put D.A.'s user page on my watchlist, and shortly thereafter I saw that T-Man had posted a personal attack there [46]. The same day, T-Man responded to my earlier advice [47], so I took the opportunity to encourage him to stay cool [48].

It appears that my advice was largely in vain, as the edit war and personal attacks continued to escalate. I am mostly a peripheral observer of this conflict, but it seems to me that both parties have violated WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on multiple occasions. Indeed, it's pretty clear to me that the personal attacks on both sides have stemmed from a failure to assume good faith. T-Man is attempting to add relevant information to comics-related articles, but his inconsistent command of English and verbose style make it difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. D.A. is attempting to improve these articles, and has become frustrated by the work involved in cleaning up T-Man's contributions. He has come to believe that T-Man's contributions are without merit, and has not been shy in saying so. T-Man has taken this as a personal affront, and has lashed out at D.A., causing D.A. to attack him in return.

I think that my experience at List of villains shows that when treated with patience and good faith, T-Man can be a valuable contributor. However, it is also clear that he needs to learn not to take edits personally, and to control his temper on talk pages and in edit summaries. D.A. has been provoked, but should also be more patient with well-intentioned contributions, and should attempt not to respond to personal attacks in kind.

[edit] Evidence by mozzerati

I came to this dispute whilst revert patrolling. I listed for deletion a page by T-man. his response was perfectly civil as far as I'm concerned. However, afterwards the entire debate is quite instructive. The history includes personal attacks from both sides in comments and in text. I've asked both editors ([49] [50]) to keep away from each other, but the reaction hasn't been exactly inspiring. Simply put; they show signs of being able to work usefully, but need to be kept apart. Mozzerati 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {Steve block}

[edit] First assertion

I don't really want to comment on the evidence, I'm not sure that's my place; surely arbitrators should assess and examine the evidence, and evaluate context and meaning. That said, I have to offer something to avoid this section appearing as a simple list of links. I have tried to remain objective and impartial, but I would direct the arbitrator's to ignore my comments and evaluate the evidence as they see fit. It's certainly possible minor comments can be seized upon and in a different light appear to mean something more than they did; however, if those comments can affect other user's behaviour and actions, then they at least need to be examined within this process. I would assert that the two users are incapable of communicating or editing together peacefully. User:Dyslexic agnostic appears unable to assume good faith with regards User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow, and appears to have formed himself into a one man T-Man correction squad, note [51]. I'm also concerned by the comments expressed in this diff, [52], which indicate some level of keeping an eye on T-Man. User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow seems incapable of keeping his temper with regards Dyslexic agnostic, and an exchange this morning, 3rd February, between the two users, [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], resulted in me blocking User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow for personal attacks [59], [60] and requesting User:Dyslexic agnostic refrain from communicating directly with T-Man.[61]. Previous to this, I also find myself concerned by an edit war on T-Man's talk page which involves personal attacks from T-Man but these need to be contextualised by Dyslexic agnostic's continued reinsertion of a warning, and also by the fact all these edits occurred within a roughly two hour period on Christmas Day:

As can be seen above, User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow has breached civility and personal attack guidelines. Examples of breaches by User:Dyslexic agnostic are altering a template to insert an attack, 23:17, 26 December 2005 and moving T-Man's user page to User:T-man, the Stalker, 05:42, 18 January 2006, and this unnecessary comment regarding T-Man, 3rd February.

[edit] Second assertion

Both users have claimed the other as stalking them:

Examples

  • User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow:
    • accuses DA of stalking him on [25/12/05

Steve block talk 12:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Dyslexic_Agnostic_Evidence_01ee.html"