Case Opened on June 29, 2005 15:23 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• User:JarlaxleArtemis
• User:Psychonaut
• dozens of other Wikipedians affected; they can join themselves to this RfA if they want
  • User:Linuxbeak -- Administrator that has dealt with Jarlaxle in the past

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation on JarlaxleArtemis's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is the second RfA against this user for the same or similar behaviours. The first RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis.

Statement by Psychonaut

Unlike with the previous RfA, I have neither the time nor the space (in 500 words or less) to provide a full account of the activities leading to this RfA. However, suffice it to say that after an initial period of compliance with the previous decision, JarlaxleArtemis has reverted to his old behaviour of neglect and abuse of Wikipedia policy in spite of repeated warnings from fellow editors. Some notable cases include:

• personal attacks
  • Replaces his user page with a prominent message calling one of his high school teachers a "fucking bitch" and inciting readers to e-mail her at the provided address [1]. He then argues with users who point out that this is offensive, harrassment, and possibly libelous [2].
  • "Fuck you, you annoying piece of shit." in response to multiple users who dispute the copyright tag he placed on an image [3].
  • Calls various other users idiots or morons and mischaracterizes their edits as vandalism. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • Multiple instances of troll-baiting. [10]
• vandalism
  • Adds code to Sandbox that he knows exploits browser vulnerabilities to cause them to lock up or crash. [11] [12]
  • Reported for vandalism to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI for repeatedly inserting obscenities. [13] [14].
  • Vandalizes User talk:Ann Heneghan [15].
  • Repeatedly inserts unsupported claims that Michael Jackson is a pedophile to various articles [16] [17] [18].
  • Crapfloods various user pages. [19] [20]
• images
  • Seems to have no concept of what constitutes "public domain", and engages in an edit war on the copyright tag of an image without providing any sources [21].
  • Continues to upload images with questionable copyright tags. See [22] for a partial list. Many (if not most) of these were already listed in the previous RfA!
  • Uploads a copyvio'd image as "fair use"; other user inserts an imagevio tag, which JarlaxleArtemis removes as "vandalism"(!) [23]
• adding irrelevant material to Wikipedia
  • Forwards jokes he received in e-mail to Talk:Pope Benedict XVI and Talk:General Motors. Users complain that he is using the talk pages as a "scribble box for bullshit" [24] [25].
  • Creates article Wikipedia:What the fuck [26].
• deleting relevant material from Wikipedia
  • Attempts to speedy-delete various religion stubs. [27] [28].
  • Attempts to speedy-delete various music album stubs. [29] [30] [31]
  • Attempts to speedy-delete a new user page with no objectionable content. [32]
  • Attempts to speedy-delete various useful redirect pages. [33]

Statement by Linuxbeak

Before I begin, let me make it clear that I refuse to participate in "witch hunts". I do not go cruising around Wikipedia actively searching for behavior that is out of line or violates policy. That's called power tripping, and it's a personality trait that I quite frankly hate. However, when I notice behavior that is clearly out of line, that's when the admin alarm goes off.

My interaction with JarlaxleArtemis is somewhat limited. I noticed a small edit war in action on Wikipedia:Sandbox (of all places!), and I decided to intervein. JarlaxleArtemis wasn't part of this dispute. However, when I refreshed the Sandbox page, I noticed that he had placed a large set of [questionable] animated GIFs on Sandbox. I am using Linux. When I viewed this page, my system waited for a few seconds, and then my X server (that's the server that provides the GUI system) crashed. I went to the same page in the history after restarting X and again, my server crashed. I placed a note on Jarlaxle's user talk page that explained the situation to him, and I thought that that would be that. It wasn't. Jarlaxle continued, despite warnings by administrators to cease and desist, being disruptive on Wikipedia:Sandbox. He was given several warnings (which he erased from his talk page with the edit summary "nonsense"), and when he failed to act properly (instead, he decided to spite the administrators after being told to stop posting nonsense on the sandbox by spamming the word "DISRUPTIVE" about 150 times or so on said sandbox), I blocked him for 24 hours. I noted on his talk page that after the 24 hour period was over, he was welcome to continue contributing.

Not long after I blocked him, Jarlaxle email-bombed me over 120 times with the word "FUCKER". I have saved the emails from deletion in case there is any need to provide evidence. He also, from what other admins have said to me, politely asked at least three other administrators to be unblocked. Now, obviously, I wasn't going to unblock him after he email-bombed me, and other administrators agreed. He did manage to get unblocked, and with his unblocking, I haven't interacted with him since.

I am not trying to get Jarlaxle in trouble, nor am I trying to get him out of it. I personally must recuse myself from advising that anything be done, because Jarlaxle obviously did something wrong to me. I am, however, asking that everything that I have said here be taken into consideration when it comes time to decide this ArbCom case. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum 1

Jarlaxle's edits have obviously been questionable in nature. However, I am not going to get into how he has been making personal attacks, or has been disruptive, or dangerous, etc. etc. That's obvious. What I think really needs to be addressed is a potential legal hazard that Jarlaxle has opened Wikipedia up to.

Jarlaxle, by posting the name and email address here, is posting libel as well as opening the doorway for harrassment and stalking. This is clearly unacceptable, and I do not care if he says "I thought I could do whatever I wanted to do to my own user page". He is putting Wikimedia in a hot legal bind, and something like this can give Wikimedia and all of its projects a bad reputation.

Another legal issue is the email-bombing. Jarlaxle initially denied that he had email-bombed me, but as you saw in his statement, he admitted to it later (and was proud of it). Even though he states (and may appear) that it is an extra-Wikipedia issue, it is actually an integral part of my warning. There are two reasons..

• First: Jarlaxle, a Wikipedia user, harrassed another Wikipedia user (me), in direct response to a Wikipedia action (my blocking of him). This was not random; in fact, it was directly connected.
• Second, and more importantly: Jarlaxle used Wikipedia as a vehicle to carry out an illegal activity (email-bombing/harrassment) by using the "E-Mail this user" button. He wasn't editing Wikipedia, nor was he contributing. He was email bombing, and that places both him and Wikimedia in a legal situation. His legal situation (direct harrassment) isn't what I'm concerned about, because I can easily boot him from his ISP. However, had he email-bombed a more sensitive user, just imagine what the legal repercussions could have been. We do not want to place Wikimedia in this type of legal hotseat.

I am therefore asking that the ArbCom use this case in the future as a "case law". I would like to see that the abuse of the "Email this user" button be addressed, and that users who violate this policy can face a serious penalty, such as a banning period. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 29, 2005 14:17 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ann Heneghan

I first came across User:JarlaxleArtemis on 18 May, 2005. He inserted a new section into the Talk:Pope Benedict XVI page to ask why the page kept disappearing. The title of the heading he created was, What the motherfucking hell!? [34] User:DanielCD replaced part of the obscenity with asterisks. [35] On 19 May, JarlaxleArtemis re-edited the page, just to reinsert the obscenity; his edit summary was "Fucking" is just a word. Get over it. [36]

User:Jtdirl changed the heading to What the hell?, explaining that obscenities offend some people, and do not help Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopaedia. [37]. JarlaxleArtemis replied, telling us that there was a Wikipedia article on the word Fuck. [38]. This behaviour was disruptive, and was completely irrelevant to the discussion on how to improve the article on Pope Benedict. Jarlaxle then changed What the hell? to ¿¡Qué coño está pasando!? [39]

User:Hajor changed this to What the heck [40] JarlaxleArtemis then reinserted ¿¡Qué coño está pasando!? [41]. He then created a page a page for Coño, which he made redirected to Cunt. [42] He then went back to the Pope Benedict Talk Page and inserted the words ¿¡Qué coño está pasando!? [43]

I deleted the section, and reported him for vandalism. I left a note on his talk page to inform him that I had reported him. [44] He replied on my talk deliberately put in big letters. I removed them [45], and he reinserted them. [46] Note that he says in his statement below that he didn't vandalize my talk page, but just left me a message. "Someone besides her removed it, so I put it back because I wanted her to see it." That is clearly not the case, as my diffs show.

He continued to disrupt the Pope Benedict XVI talk page by reinserting the obscenities three times after he had received my message. [47] [48] [49]. However, in his defence, I should add that when User:Hajor suggested on his talk page that he should go back to the Pope Benedict XVI talk page and delete that section, [50] JarlaxleArtemis complied. [51] I have had no personal dealings with him since then, but have noticed that he sometimes makes constructive edits. [52] However, his behaviour is often very disruptive, and he needs to be made aware that this will not be tolerated. Ann Heneghan 23:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by JarlaxleArtemis

These claims against me are highly exaggerated. These claims come from admins who have not the understanding of the situation nor the patience to fully investigate the situation before they make these ridiculous claims against me.

• The edits on my user page concerning my high school teacher
  • She does not use Wikipedia.
  • It is my own user page! I was under the impression that one could put anything one wants on their own user page.
• Obscenities
  • I did not know that Wikipedia was a censored place.
  • They are just words.
  • They weren’t even directed at anyone. [53]
  • I didn’t vandalize User talk:Ann Heneghan. I left her a message expressing my opinion. Someone besides her removed it, so I put it back because I wanted her to see it. [54]
• Misinterpreted edit summary
  • I didn’t call anyone an idiot. I merely said “revert idiocy.” In other words, I called his edit idiotic, not him. [55]
• Images
  • I did provide sources to those images. [56] [57]
• Wikipedia:What the fuck
  • I created this redirect to Wikipedia:Help desk because I had just seen an admin create a redirect to Wikipedia:Help desk titled Wtf! or something similar.
• “Speedying” material
  • Contained no information whatsoever about the subject [58]
  • Was a copy of another article [59]
  • Initially marked as a “speedy.” A few minutes later, I noticed my mistake and stated the reason for the “speedy” on Talk:Do You Know . I also tried to clean up the article as retribution after that. [60]
  • Contained a short list of dead links. It wasn’t encyclopedic, so I marked it as a “speedy.” [61]
  • Just a list. Didn’t explain what the heck the list was about, so I marked it as a “speedy.” [62]
  • User page was created by an anon, so I marked it as a “speedy.” [63] Kelly Martin later told me to assume good faith. I agreed with her and realized that I had erred. [64]
  • Marked the redirect page Gaels as a “speedy” because there was no need for it. Instead of inserting [[Gaels]] as a link, one can instead just as easily insert [[Gael]]s.
• Michael Jackson
  • Claims that Michael Jackson is a pedophile are widely supported and widely publicized. One merely has to read the newspaper and watch the news on television.
• “Crapflooding” various anon’s talk pages
  • Was a mistake with my browser or something like that. I have already explained this on User talk:JarlaxleArtemis#whats up with the user warning-flooding?.
• Sandbox and Linuxbeak
  • I didn’t know that the “code” I added to the Sandbox would exploit browser vulnerabilities and cause them to lock up or crash. Heck, I didn’t even add a code! I added a bunch of funny cartoon images.
  • Linuxbeak later blocked me for this edit to the Sandbox. I had no idea that adding 9 5/7 lines of the word “disruptive” to the Sandbox constituted a block.
    • I was outraged because of this unfair block, and “e-mail bombed” him because he deserved it. E-mailing is not part of Wikipedia, so it shouldn’t even be included in this unjust case. ‡ Jarlaxle June 28, 2005 05:23 (UTC)

Statement by some random outsider

• This guy is realy horrible, though I'm no victim of his. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• ...“e-mail bombed” him because he deserved it. See, that statement alone pretty much shows why discipline is called for. -- Calton | Talk 29 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)
  • If emailing is not part of Wikipedia, then why does Wikipedia allow the editors to be contacted by email? Plus, if the email bomb was over something that took place in Wikipedia, then it can be considered a breach in Wikiquete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:jtdirl

I concur with the descriptions of the user in question here. He seems to have no concept that one can't simply add on any old rubbish here. I had to repeatedly remove his supposed 'humourous' images to the talk:Benedict XVI and well as tone down obscenities. Though Wikipedians repeatedly tried to point out that this is an encyclopædia, not a game, and what we write shows up on google searches, the user in question refused to accept that and in the middle of serious debates on serious issues would insert either offensive or utterly irrelevant stuff. In his edits all over he showed no desire to act responsibly but just treated the whole thing as a sick joke. His behaviour seriously annoyed everyone around him but he refused to stop, just adding in other obscenities and other irrelevant BS all over the place.

FearÉIREANN File:Irish flag.gif File:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\ ^(caint) 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Statement by Anthere

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJarlaxleArtemis&diff=23422604&oldid=23422115

Anthere 07:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Called me a fucking bitch by email, in itself no big deal. But not exactly helpful. Anthere 11:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Zscout370

I dealt with this user before on the image mentioned earlier: Image:Moon.gif. JarlaxleArtemis added this image on May 16th, but it was placed on IFD weeks later. [65]. It survived IFD, due to it being used on the Emoticon article and on several talk pages. Image_talk:Moon.gif. Users claim the image was being used for attacking users and annons, which Jarlaxle said he did by saying "I put this image sometimes on vandal's pages because they piss me off." [66]. This image is not at WP:PUI, since the original source and copyright of the image is not provided. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept, and suspect temporary injunction may be necessary. Ambi 16:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - I agree with Ambi. →Raul654 03:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept -- sannse (talk) 28 June 2005 22:46 (UTC)
• Accept - David Gerard 29 June 2005 05:01 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

Case was closed after JarlaxleArtemis was banned permanently as a result of actions detailed at User:Linuxbeak/Admin stuff/JarlaxleArtemis. →Raul654 17:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC) reply