Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement by 3rd party Benon

I have been attempting to mediate a dispute over Enemies of Batman on the talk page of the article, however the dispute between the two parties seems to go a lot further than that, including stalking and harrassment.

See the relevant discussion on the admin noticeboard: [1]

May I draw emphasis to these links [2] & [3]

May I also draw the arbitrators' attention to a section of the blocking policy and wiki-stalk policy:

Users who exhaust the community's patience There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community").

Benon 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also from the Wiki-stalking policy:

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.

Benon 05:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why a user conduct RfC is appropriate prior to an RfArb is precisely this: we need to gauge if any particular user has exhausted the community's patience, and that is best done by bringing the issue to the wider Wikipedia community via the RfC. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Interested Party Hiding

I may be too personally involved in this, but I would question the block on a couple of grounds. Was dyslexic warned that he would be blocked on grounds of personal attacks? I've been wary to block either user on grounds of personal attacks because my reading of policy was that it wasn't implicit that such blocks are allowed in said policy. I'm also unclear on which user is stalking which, both having claimed the other as stalker. I also have to question why one user is blocked for a personal attack which the blocker in question decides is in response to personal attacks. I certainly agree with Khaosworks that you're sending the message to T-Man that he has done nothing wrong; and that is a wrong message, not to mention an unfair one. That's my initial thoughts on the block. Hiding talk 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: The header "Statement by Interested Party Hiding" was not added by myself but by another user.

Expansion. Having read through the page again, I still fail to see evidence of a clear warning that either party would be blocked for personal attacks. The best I can find is from Benon who states it is not nessasry to stoop to the level of a personal attack so please don't do, i dont want to but anymore personal attacks and i will be asking admins to impose sancations on either of you. This prompted the reply from Dyslexic that saw him blocked, namely: Benon, it's not a personal attack to say that T-Man's edits are bad, a waste of everyone's time, and that he only knows the animated series, not the comics. These are obvious facts. They affect our ability to edit and spend time on other important matters.

Now, taking all things as even I think this initial block was therefore ill judged. There should have been at least one more warning stressing that the language Dyslexic had used did indeed constitute a personal attack. I also have to say that this attempted mediation was rather badly handled. It seemed to me far better to try and let the two resolve their differences through their own means and at their own pace. There are certainly communication issues between the two users, and there appears to be a clash of personalities too. I think there is certainly a problem here, but I'm not sure bringing the two users together when tensions were high and the underlying problems were not being addressed was the best way of handling it. The problem that was trying to be addressed was one on content at Enemies of Batman, and there are other editors involved in building a consensus on this issue, not just the two which were summoned to the article's talk page to discuss the issue.

If the arbitration commitee agree to accept this issue it is my personal opinion they have to examine not just the actions of the two participants listed here, but also that of the mediator, who to my eye was not requested by either party. I think perhaps it would be better if this request was turned down and we instead evaluated the article and seek to determine where the good faith in building a consensus approach to it lies. Hiding talk 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I actually warned DA a while ago, but he immediatly removed the warning from his talk page. --InShaneee 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
also blocking policy states:-
Users who exhaust the community's patience

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Benon 05:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On reflection I've probably been too hard in some of my comments, especially on Benon, and I think I will withdraw from commenting further on the matter. It appears I am certainly an interested party. I extend an apology to Benon, to whom I did not fully extend the protocol of assuming good faith. Hiding talk 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Interested Party Toffile

A note to arbitrators, there has been almost no dispute resolution between T-Man and Dyslexic Agnostic. I do not know why someone has filed for an RfAr, but I rather emphasize that this should be rejected and taken to RfC instead.--Toffile 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I second this as being premature, although my cynicism tells me it'll turn up here eventually. A content RfC was filed regarding Enemies of Batman just prior to this RfArb. Although I feel that a user conduct RfC on T-Man should be filed instead, since his conflict goes beyond the Enemies article and beyond his clashes with Dyslexic Agnotic. Either of these RfCs should be allowed to run its course before this is brought up before ArbCom. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Statement by 3rd party Shanel

I first became aware of the dispute between Dyslexic agnostic and T-man through Benon. He had noticed them on #wikipedia-en-vandalism, and informed me that they were coming close to a 3RR. We both soon realized that there was a feud between them. Benon said that he would try to mediate, and I agreed he should give it a shot. After some warnings by myself and Benon, both parties appeared to be working together. However, they soon reverted to the same behaviour. The first party I had blocked was Dyslexic agnostic, for calling T-man's edit's a waste of time. When T-man ignored my warning to not to post any personal attacks, he ignored it and was blocked as well.

After being blocked, both emailed me. Dyslexic agnostic admitted to being frustrated, and T-man admitted he has a short temper and acted innappropriately. I exchanged about eight emails with him, and I referred him to the AMA, but he has not edited since his block expired.

While I do not have a much knowledge of this feud as Hiding or Khaosworks, it seems to me that it has been ongoing. They seem to cooperate for a time, before once again going back to personally attacking each other and/or stalking each other. For this reason I doubt an RfC or an RfM would work. I think that only an enforcable decision with consequences will help T-man and Dyslexic agnostic.

Note: T-man has given me permission to publish his emails to me.--Shanel 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion for consideration

May I make a motion that both editors in question be temporarily restricted from editing the article in question whilst this arbitration takes its course, to try and avoid the smoke bursting into flames? Benon 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC) [4]

[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] Another request for clarification

Over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Proposed decision#General, there's the following comment:

A note to whomever closes this case: the Committee takes the mentorship remedy to supercede the banning remedy, up to and until either the mentorship breaks down or the mentors deem the ban necessary. Dmcdevit·t 09:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I take that to mean that T-Man's 6-month ban would be suspended unless the mentoring fails. However, there's nothing on the final decision page to indicate this. The "Remedies" section says, "Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated." Does Dmcdevit's comment on the proposed decision reflect the committee's intentions in this case or not? (It will make a difference for T-man.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for clarification copied from WP:RFAR

[edit] Dyslexic Agnostic

Is the ArbCom probation restricted to article/project pages, or does it extend to talk pages as well? Titoxd(?!?) 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)