Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis 2/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychonaut hates me for some reason, and I don't know why. He seems to have some vendetta against me and continuously makes up half-truths and misinterprets my edits. Furthermore, he never warned me on my talk page about what I was doing wrong, and he let me purposefully blunder in order to get me into more trouble. The only helpful thing he has ever done for me is leaving a note on my talk page letting me know that he has filed arbitrations against me. ‡ Jarlaxle 02:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, first things first. Let's get something clear, here, Jarlaxle. A lot of us have a major beef with you. We're not going to hide from that; in fact, I have no intention of pretending that I do not. Second: you obviously are not receptive to civility and to organizational dialoge, so I will now dispose of the diplomacy and give you the full scoop without any sugar coating. Now that we've got that out of the way, let's take a look at the situation. A lot of those who have a beef against you, such as myself, User:Kelly Martin, User:Y0u, and others, happen to be administrators. The reason why we ARE administrators is because the Wikipedia community has found us to be mature, responsible, and generally dependable. A lot goes on behind the scenes, Jarlaxle, and believe it or not, a lot gets noticed. The reason why a lot of us administrators have found it necessary to file not your first but your second Request for Arbitration case is because we have found you to be totally out of line with Wikipedia policies. The evidence page against you is huge to the point of comical, and your actions have obviously shown a lack of care for the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Let me be honest: you're damn lucky that it was me that you e-mail bombed, and not some other administrator. You could have been not only blocked indefintely from Wikipedia for harrasing another user, you could have been sued as well as your ISP being contacted and you being blacklisted from gaining Internet access. Quoting from Darth Vader: "The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am."

Now, this is all fine and dandy. However, I know you're still calling me an asshole and corrupt and all of that other foolishness for reverting your edits as well as blocking you three times. Well, cry me an ocean and buy me a yacht. You're in hot water, Jarlaxle, and you know it. The arbitrators are not stupid, and they will not cut you slack just because you are whining that someone's got a personal vendetta against you. And stop stamping your feet about me, because you're just expending energy that you could be using towards perhaps apologizing for your actions and possibly... just maybe... getting yourself OUT of trouble? Now there's an idea!

Now, don't get me wrong. You want to call me an asshole, you go right ahead. But before you call this kettle black, let's take a step back and put this into perspective...

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]

Let's not forget my personal favorite: [10]

You do realize why that link I provided at the bottom... the one in which you posted the e-mail address of your soon-to-be 11th grade English teacher, Mrs. Alexander Fletcher, and asked that users e-mail her and tell her what a "fucking bitch" she is... is my personal favorite? Just to let you know: that little stunt of yours backfired. Your favorite "asshole" (i.e. me) was more than happy to e-mail her, using the address that you provided, alerting her that you were committing an act of criminal harrassment and libel against her. I tell you, she was rather appreciative. Have fun as a junior in her English class; I'm sure that won't be at all awkward.

Anyway, getting back to my original point: we've given you plenty of wiggle room and error margin. Some of the things that you've done we've let you get away with. Complain all you want about me reverting your recent edits... just remember that you were in violation of you temporary injunction (for the third time) with each edit. Those edits you made might not have been "bad" but they were in fact illegal, and therefore removable. You're lucky that I or any other editor did not remove all of your post-injunction edits, because they were all (except for those pages outlined in said injunction) illegal. So... get over it. You've had your crying time, now face the fact that you are prohibited from editing the vast majority of Wikipedia.

I still hold my position on the evidence page: I'm not a witch hunter. As a matter of fact, I would actually be willing to try to defend you to a certain degree iff (if and only if; your math teacher should have taught you that one) you can come up with a sincere and acceptable apology. If you're planning on saying "Yeah yeah, I'm sorry, Linuxbeak's not an asshole. Now let me edit", or something to that effect, don't even bother. Let's hear some humility and some indication that you have something to contribute to the Wikipedia community besides headaches. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried to get rid of that edit, but Psychonaut wouldn't let me.[11] ‡ Jarlaxle 04:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wait, you said criminal? Yeah, right. ‡ Jarlaxle 04:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

First, we're not going to delete a page that has an integral part to do with your ArbCom case. That would be stupid. Plus, it doesn't matter if you're trying to delete it; the fact of the matter is you POSTED it in the first place. What you did was call libel.

And yes. I did in fact indicate that your edits were of a criminal nature. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 04:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Is this title not grammitically incorrect? ‡ Jarlaxle 05:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Let someone else make that correction. You are prohibited from correcting it yourself. Let me make an analogy: if a person is caught mugging someone, they are required to serve time in jail. Even if they fully intend on going back to the person they mugged so they can apologize and make amends, they are still not allowed to leave jail to do so. You have a "jail sentence" right now. If you violate that sentence (which you have), you will be consequently shackled by a block to prevent you from doing so. Your edits were made during a temporary injunction, and it doesn't matter if they were totally legit in another light. They are illegal. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jarlaxle, whether or not I hate you and whether or not I have a personal vendetta against you are completely irrelevant to this arbitration case. This case was brought forth to judge the behaviour reported on the Evidence page. Even if you are correct that I am misinterpreting or exaggerating some of the evidence, I think the remainder is more than enough to justify this investigation. (In my opinion, the teacher harassment and e-mail bombing incidents alone are grounds for a banning.) Finally, it's not my responsibility to educate you on Wikipedia policy (even though, contrary to your claims, I did explain things to you on a number of occasions: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). You are supposed to familiarize yourself with the rules and guidelines here, particularly when other Wikipedians point out your questionable behaviour. Psychonaut 15:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)