This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

i belive that at the moment these two users seem to have truce thats probably holding, however a remdy allowing an adminsitartor to intervene at the first sign of trouble would be a very good thing Benon 15:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed temporary injunctions

T-Man and DA banned from each other's talk page

1) I propose an immedte effect temporary injunction banning both parties from the others talk page and reverting the other users contribution, or face sancations imposed on them by adminsBenon 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[1][reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A user page block would be fine. I ask Benon to provide ONE INSTANCE of incivility since the 24-hour block. Dyslexic agnostic 04:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I question a ban on my ability to revert T-Man's contributions... this effectively allows T-Man to make "bad edits" on pages I frequent, and I am powerless to stop him, relying on or bothering others to do it for me. I will of course only revert edits that are not salvageable; otherwise I will try to edit. And it goes both ways, as T-Man may disagree with my edits. But the user talk page ban is fair... any comments re edits can be left on the appropriate article talk page. Dyslexic agnostic 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before any decision is made on blocking each of us from the other's talk page, I would ask for time. I beleive T-man and I can solve our differences. Dyslexic agnostic 08:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please. And do it already if posible, no need to wait for voting. This could have saved me a lot of trouble recently. I also propose to block our contributions list from each other you can't imagine the peace this would bring us.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

i believe this is needed as the parties continue being un-cicil via talk pages, we need something now.Benon 17:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt either party would protest a user page block, but I contend that limiting either's ability to edit the other is unecessary. Since this arbitration began, Dyslexic agnostic has been nothing but civil to T-man. I see no need to punish him for fixing T-man's limited English and being part of the consensus about T-man's sometimes off the wall edits.--Gillespee 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i didnt say edting but revertingBenon 09:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would disagree. They're both been on good behavior since it began. I'd be more likely to support this if there's a problem in the future.--Toffile 21:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

It isn't the case anymore sadly. I support this ban.--Toffile 13:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full support. I have requested Dyslexic Agnostic refrain from communicating directly through T-Man's talk page after these events, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], for which I blocked T-Man for 24 hours. (Forgot to sign, this was from me, Hiding talk 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

1) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

2) When disputes arise users are expected to patiently negotiate, consult sources and other editors and, if necessary, follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Non-native writers

3) Non-native speakers and writers of English sometimes edit the English Wikipedia. They are expected to understand that their contributions may be corrected. Incomplete knowledge of English does not excuse violations of civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What Wikistalking is not

4) Watch-listing pages that are frequently edited by an editor whose English is imperfect does not constitue Wikistalking if the purpose of the watch-listing is to correct the grammar, syntax, or spelling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is my sole intent currently. My recent edits of T-Man are just grammar and spelling based. if I have information to add to the article while there, I will also do so, but that is purely secondary. Dyslexic agnostic 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DA follow me to Bomb! expression and Users talk pages. Those pages are not in his watch list. He uses my contribution list to follow me. And all the "Grammar Corrections" (just erasing the whole thing unlike Hiding, Wesley Dodds or Josiah Rowe) he has done have a clear tendence to obsesiveness (some not even before I finish) and feel like harassment and discrimination against me. Especially when he just reverse , vandalize (last one Jan 18 on my User page) or adds tags that obviously bother me. This actions are the cause and my attacks are the effect. Minimize this problem and soon you will have another case just like this one, because no one is ever going to feel or react nicely to this kind of harassments. DA has been bullying me .I said this once and the administrator didn't care, and now we are all here: I don't wish DA's harassment/stalking/"monitoring"/vandalism on anybody, even on my worst enemy, it feels awful. Later, Bennon noticed it, Shanel noticed it and that's what got us here, not the foolish ways I have taken to stand against this outrage.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

DA does have a right to correct the grammar of T-man's posts. T-man is mistaken when he thinks that this is stalking. Need to state clearly that it is not stalking. (This dude didn't sign. Now, being here I'm gona take advantage and recomend this fine fellow if he likes that behavior so much, he could as DA to follow him around instead of me. Believe me I wouldn' mind. =P --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus and adversaries

1) The locus of the dispute is Superman and Batman and concerns the edits and interaction of T-man,_the_Wise_Scarecrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dyslexic agnostic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Dyslexic agnostic feels he has a duty to correct T-man, the Wise Scarecrow [8]. T-man, the Wise Scarecrow has not appreciated the attention [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discourtesy and personal attacks by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

2) T-man, the Wise Scarecrow has been discourteous and has made personal attacks [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. See also [16].

Comment by Arbitrators:

I have replace one example that did not amount to much. I will check the other examples given but find T-Man to be quite discourteous Fred Bauder 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In the email correspondence with me over his one-month block I found T-man to be very polite and civil, and at no point did he try to engage in personal attacks. This behaviour was enough for me to unblock him after his original one-week block ran out, and not let the full one-month block sit out. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:50 UTC (2006-02-19)

Discourtesy and personal attacks by Dyslexic Agnostic

3) Dyslexic Agnostic has been discourteous and made personal attacks [17], [18], [19], and [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Rather mild stuff, but there Fred Bauder 19:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I acknowledge discourtesy by me in December. I affirm that there will be no such further discourtesy on my part towards T-Man (and I sincerely hope towards no one at all), and my recent attempts to communicate and "patch things up" were honest and sincere, yet ultimately fruitless and in fact it would appear counterproductive. Dyslexic agnostic 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please, remember your use of the word poor is an attack you keep doing even here. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

DA, while we haven't seen eye-to-eye on some rather minor issues regarding the Multiverse page, I must admit that your decorum in addressing the matter has been respectful. Netkinetic 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

4) Feeling that he was being stalked by Dyslexic Agnostic, T-man, the Wise Scarecrow disrupted Wikipedia by striking back [21].

Comment by Arbitrators:

The diff certainly shows T-Man's frustration. Other folks can correct spelling and grammar, there is minimal harm to the project if something imperfect is around for a while. Better to not identify someone as a problem editor; trouble almost always follows in the train of that decision. Fred Bauder 19:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I back Fred. He pointed the motiff of every not so bright act I've done in the past. I've been feeling frustrated by this behavior that has not stopped yet (Bomb! (expression)) and I feel a discrimination against me all this time. Even though he clearly commited acts of vandalism, nobody ever pointed DA's behavior before Shanel, so by then, because I felt alone against this, I already had started a poor defense system. First I used to attack him everywhere but the summaries, then I stopped doing it on articles talk pages, then recently I stopped attacking on his user page and finally I'll avoid even anwering him in my own page. All of this happened as my understanding of the Personal Attack concept grew. Now I apologise again. I'll also point that I feel DA's insistive use of the word "poor" a continuos attack. That kind of comments are actually pointed on WP:NPA.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of stalking, I intend to, and have, continued to fix T-Man's poor grammar and spelling, and as such monitor his edits. I have checked carefully and determined that this is NOT a violation of wikistalking, as it is hardly disruptive to fix grammar and spelling. For authority, see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking, where in the two cases cited, "the action of 'following someone around' was not the only offense, but rather compounded the harm that the stalker was causing to the project". If I have a greater concern than mere typos and gramar, I will either have to bite my tongue, I guess, or alert others to my concerns (thereby creating more work), in my opinion. I ask ANYONE to show me how I have done harm to any pages by my edits. Dyslexic agnostic 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wiki-stalking by DA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As seen on the evidence page, he is clearly and admittedly monitoring me. I feel angry and discriminated by these actions that made me act like a complete jerk. His last stalking actions were his edits on Bomb! (expression). Those edits prove that he is currently using my contributions list to stalk me and not only "monitoring" me through his watch list as he claimed. Blocking him from my contributions list is necesary to keep peace.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 04:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I wrote this as an answer to a mail by him:

''Avoid direct contact with me as much as posible, that's all I ask. You don't follow me
around to fix my links or typos. Take fred Bauer's advice, there is nothing wrong with a 
little imperfection when info is brand new, don't blow it out of proportion. Mistakes lead to 
doubt the information, which is a good thing if it is brand new. That imperfection reflects 
its character, but a well written factual mistake or total absence of the info only lead to 
misinformation. All my bigger contribs are already polished by more skillful editors like 
Wesley Dotts, Josiah Rowe or Hiding. And the fact that data reads now perfectly and has 
been worked by more than one editor is what makes it now so trustworthy. Stop expecting 
perfect words from me, perfection will be achieved by my contribs when the finest words come 
to it through the vision of the rest of the comunity. 
The pyramids didnt look like that from the first rock, it took an entire country to build
them. What would had happened if someone would have continuosly taken off the first rock?...
Every time someone did that probably delayed the work a hundred years. Is this what you want
 to do?
''Ringht now I can barely stand seeing your name anywhere. I alredy deleted it from my entire
talk page to take off negative energy. Give me a couple of years and we will see. Maybe a 
different Eddie could then understand a different Frank. Thanks for your help on my block, it 
talks good of you. Please, don't insist anymore.

''T-man

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

T-man has violated assume good faith

5) In response to overtures by Dyslexic Agnostic to make peace [22] and [23], T-man responds [24] and [25].

Comment by Arbitrators:

The peace overture do seem a little tardy, but T-Man response seems to assume there must be a winner and a loser rather than two winners. Fred Bauder 19:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As stated above, I regret that these overtures were met with distrust. i continue to extend an olive branch to T-Man. Dyslexic agnostic 22:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I reply: if the olive means stopping your monitoring activities and your atempts to "work together". I'd gladly take it with the offer of my apologies. Let's be good fellows to each other and do our best to try to meet as rarely as posible.

This acusation if absurd. Of course I doubt DA's good faith, no act of vandalism like the one of jan 18th on my User page is done in good faith. This whole a RfA is on good faith issues. I find the acusation of me not assuming good faith rather sensacionalistic. I mean following that line of thinking I could acusate anyone voting for sanctions against me of not assuming good faith in me. But that's not the case, I do respond to my acts, if they were too agressive and against rules, I'll apologise, pay my deeds and do the time. Lets be reasonable and realistic, our presence here and especially DA's name on the title of the page means our good faith is on trial. All the ones that started this situation and even I'm accusing DA of not editing me in good faith, that's the whole point here. crosslined by advocate, agreed by --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC), Robert has full aproval of any edit he does even to my own words on my behalf. I'm also feedback learning from him in the process.[reply]

I sugest this acusation is removed, for it is pointless.--T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 16:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning his good faith is actually a strategy I used to prove he is harassing me. Wikistalking, vandalizing, personal attacking, harassing, and all the rest are actually not "acting in good faith", that's reality. Please, stop toying with my words and remove the acusation.

Using that as an argument against me is a falacy. Following that criteria, any enforcers or arbitrators wouldn't be assuming good faith by doing their very necesary work. Not having them because nobody can "not asume good faith" would be unrealistic. Control is necesary everywhere against unconvenient acts. The only difference is that I'm calling things by their name, even if it isn't a nice one. Honestly. User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow|T-man... ""worst vandal ever""]] 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Both parties appear to be willing now to cooperate. The principle of AGF does need to be restated, but a Finding of Fact is not necessary if action is to be remedial. Robert McClenon 21:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) as advocate for T-man.[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) T-man,_the_Wise_Scarecrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for one week for continued personal attacks. The block was extended to a month and his talk page protected after the attacks persisted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

T-man is not a native user of English. As such, he should expect that native users of English will correct his grammar and spelling, and should be civil. Native users of English, who correct his grammar and spelling, should also be civil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

T-Man under mentorship

1) T-man has been blocked by shanel and nsle, and this ban has been removed after nsle was e-mailed and a dailouge had taken place. T-man is placed under a metorship period of 1 year to be supervised by the administrator shanel or nsle or user Josiah Rowe whichever the arbcom feels is most apporpraite..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I now fully understand Personal Attack and Blocking criteria. This worked for me, and I'm thankful to both my blockers. --T-man... ""worst vandal ever"" 16:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of the mentors fluent in both English and Spanish? A knowledge of Spanish would be useful, since some of the problems have resulted from T-man not being a native speaker and writer of English. Robert McClenon 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't know whether the arbitrators are considering my offer of mentorship or not, but I should say here that I do not speak Spanish. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the mentors haven't been named yet. This is a good point, and one we'll have to take into consideration. Dmcdevit·t 19:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If this was to take effect I'm willing to oversee T-man's edits. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:52 UTC (2006-02-19) 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
all aprties named have said they would be willing to mentor t-man nowBenon 04:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack parole

1) T-man and Dyslexic Agnostic are both placed on standard personal attack parole for six months. Each of them may be blocked for any personal attacks. The initial block shall be 48 hours. Longer blocks may follow if necessary, up to a year after five attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Since T-man says that he now understands the policies, this resets the escalating block back to 48 hours for the time being. Both parties were uncivil. One has been blocked. Both need to be cautioned. Robert McClenon 21:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC) as advocate for T-man.[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. T-man

This is what I'm saying:

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". His recent edit on Bomb! (expresion), although it was a good edit, it is a proof of DAs insistive and still operative habits I find so uncomfortable. 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, or NSLE. One should be able to choose his monitor.

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: