Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic

message: 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: 
May I draw emphasis to these links  & 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by 3rd party Benon

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Interested Party Toffile

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by 3rd party Shanel

message: 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)
thread_title: Motion for consideration

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, and a note to the arbitrators, T-man is seeking an advocate before adding his statement. Benon 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: request for a small clarification from the arbitrators

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another request for clarification 

message: ===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)
replies: text: Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification copied from [[WP:RFAR]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dyslexic Agnostic