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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Parole

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Probation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the clarification. Dyslexic agnostic 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query re jurisdiction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Double negation in English is either positive for rhetorical purposes or uneducated.  Robert McClenon 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: T-Man ban

message: 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)
replies: text: Double negation in English is either positive for rhetorical purposes or uneducated.  Robert McClenon 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double negatives

message: 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)
thread_title: Advocate raises the 2 cents by a penny

message: 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)
thread_title: Holiday