Caution: Voregence - unprofessional conduct

This is one of those weird ones where I personally see what you indicated in your reference sheet, but can also see how the second fix would be debatable.  I would definitely suggest making a close up detail shot of those as a quick go through of your gallery shows that it's done in a variety of different ways.

You've stated that you will be making some updates to your ref and that's a good thing, but please be certain to give any emphasis on your ref that you consider Must Have. If there is anything to your character you find you must have, no exceptions, make that clear on your ref.

I understand your eagerness after the wait but filing a charge-back after only an hour's wait is completely unreasonable. I even find the act of sending an ultimatum after only 24 hours to be out of hand on your part. And you clearly don't understand now menstrual pain can be for some people, because if you did, you wouldn't have pulled the hammer after only an hour. For some people the pain can be as bad as kidney pain and will literally make a person bedridden, which the artist in question did give an example of it's severity. It's as good as being sick. You don't have to answer this, but consider for a moment, if she said she had been ill, would you have been this impatient? Would you have still expected a reply within an hour or would you have been more lenient?

While I wouldn't go so far as to say your filing a charge-back is blackmail, it is underhanded. I can see why the artist made the journal in question, which does not name you in any way, and in submitting this you've outed yourself. It's not exactly professional to vent in a public journal about a client even unnamed, but I'm at least sympathetic to the artists' frustration due to your strong-arm tactics, and I can see the journal has since been removed.

I can concede that the wait without contact isn't good, and that at the very least she should have noted that the were 3 spikes in the ref, but everything else after that? That's all on you.

24 minutes ago, Happyartz said:

I've read a lot of bewares on this site and this is the only one I personally have to disagree with.  

 Not a big issue; but this isn't a beware but a "caution". Enough to give pause; but also enough you can take it with a grain of salt.

Everything else you said I am in full agreement with.

Yes it was originally submitted as a beware, but we downgraded it. There's no way this qualifies for a beware. The like feature is disabled for mods, but I'm in full agreement with Armaina.

Just now, Rionquosue said:

attempts to slander me 

I'm curious what part of what the artist said was false, and when did they publicly name you?

Slander (in this case libel as it"s written) is not "someone said things I don't like about me". It's specifically "someone said something directly about me that is false to specifically financially harm me."

As a moderator it's our job to be as impartial as possible, but nothing the artist has said is libel. You attempted to gain the entirety of the amount back, and you most certainly are not entitled to that.

Also 26 hours is still a short amount of time. She's right. Not everyone is available constantly or consistently. I've easily pulled 16 hr shifts at work and can take longer than 26 hours to respond. 

There were definitely missteps from the artist's behalf, but this is a situation where the both of you are at fault to some degree. You've acknowledged the issue that came up in the process of attempting to get the piece edited, which is fine.

But your subsequent response after it wasn't up to your personal standard was out of line, imo. If they had been outright ghosting you for over a month, I'd say it was cause for alarm, but you hardly waited at all for her to get back to you, and in a way, you forced her into a corner and her reaction was justified to an extent. It's even worse that you pushed for a chargeback for the full amount.

Looking at the artist's price range for this sort of work, it absolutely looks like it was a full refund request.

Work was rendered, even with the communication falling apart with the unprofessional conduct on both sides, this is unacceptable. This alone would make me wary of ever working with you, or even recommending you to others as a client.

It doesn't matter if you've commissioned 1 piece or 1000 pieces in the past, shit happens and you react in the manner *you* perceive is correct in the moment, but ultimately it isn't right. If I were you, I would take a step back and look at the situation objectively to see where you could improve on your manner of communication.

You keep bringing up 'external issues', citing them as reasons for your aggression, but they are not included within the post. If it pertains to your circumstances with this commission, then they should have been included in your initial posting if you consider these things to be of great importance.
You only continue to vaguely allude to them, but you do not provide proof of this conduct against you.

The external situation either pertains to this situation or it doesn't, you should decide where you stand there vs continuing to prop something up that comes off very 'he said/she said'.

If the things said are ultimately unimportant in the realm of this post, then you should drop them all together and not use them as a justification for yourself, plain & simple. The conclusions drawn are only to this point because of what we as a community can see in this post, with the information provided and your subsequent responses.

Putting the onus on the community is kind of ridiculous when the burden of proof is on you as the OP to this caution post x: 

10 minutes ago, rikki said:

-snip for length-

It was asked to be excluded by us because the telegram chat in question had a lot of third parties in it, and we were unsure of the level of privacy this chat had or has.

It isn't anything different than the journal other than other users and the artist calling the OP names. OP was never directly named. The artist called OP an "idiot".  The artist was frustrated that the PayPal dispute could put their account in jeopardy due to the no adult rule for paypal.

Edit: refreshed myself on the chat, so it's more accurate now.

2 hours ago, Celestina said:

It isn't anything different than the journal other than other users and the artist calling the OP names. OP was never directly named. The artist called OP an "idiot".  The artist was frustrated that the PayPal dispute could put their account in jeopardy due to the no adult rule for paypal.

This is the thing that needs to be emphasized, OP in comments continues to claim that the chat is what prompted his actions but that chat log didn't happen until after the threat of fling a dispute. (but before the actual dispute itself) In that situation I think any artist would feel need to vent in a private group briefly. There's simply no compassion on the OP's end as he disregards all emotional and physical stress and opts to push harder instead of reconcile at all.

It's like I said before, even with the wait and debatable circumstances regarding the readability of the ref, (which is pretty much the only grounds as to why this was accepted in the first place) everything else is on the OP.