Learn English – Omitting repeated words like “have”, “has” and “his”

Let's start with some sentences:

S1. S2. S3. S4. S5.

We can combine them with and, with or without commas:

S1 and S2 and S3 and S4 and S5.
S1, and S2, and S3, and S4, and S5.

We can optionally delete every and except the last one.
Although it's optional, we do it most of the time:

S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5.

When we do this, most of the commas are required.
(The last one is optional.)

Now let's look at your sentences:

S1 = His face become full dirt.
S2 = A tooth has broken.
S3 = Muscles bleed.
S4 = Arm bones broken.
S5 = His dress has torn.

These sentences have various problems. In particular, S1 is ungrammatical, S2 would normally have the possessor of the tooth as its subject, S3 sounds like a generalization about muscles, S4 isn't a complete sentence, S5 uses dress to refer to what is probably not a dress, and the sentences don't mesh in tense or aspect. We need to fix these things before we even think about combining them.

Let's try these five sentences instead:

S1 = His face was full of dirt.
S2 = He'd broken a tooth.
S3 = His muscles were bleeding.
S4 = His arms were broken.
S5 = His clothes were torn.

Now we can optionally combine them:

His face was full of dirt
and he'd broken a tooth
and his muscles were bleeding
and his arms were broken
and his clothes were torn.

Usually we delete every and except the last one and insert commas:

His face was full of dirt,
he'd broken a tooth,
his muscles were bleeding,
his arms were broken,
and his clothes were torn.

Now we've combined them successfully. But we don't need to. We could just put one sentence after another:

His face was full of dirt.
He'd broken a tooth.
His muscles were bleeding.
His arms were broken.
His clothes were torn.

Which should you do? Whichever you like. It's grammatical either way.

I think your instinct is correct.

To begin with, you can't say many others and I because other has to have an antecedent to distinguish itself from. You leave the hearer wondering "many other than who?"

But both many people and I and I and many people sound almost as odd. I suggest—and this is nothing more than a guess—that this is because employing a conjunction implies that many people and I are two different sorts of entity: you are distinguished from many people and consequently must be something other than a person. I and many others avoids this implication; but If you want to put the many in first place you're going to have to say something like as many people, including me, have said.