Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-17 KillerChihuahua

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Conduct of administrator, KillerChihuahua
Status	new
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User:KillerChihuahua

Request made by: Bearly541 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

• Killer Chi's talk page before archive
• User talk:Bearly541/Archive2
• User talk:Bearly541/Archive3
• Mr. Darcy/KC conflict
• RV of vandalism warnings
• Killer Chi's Archive which shows a previous incident
• User talk:Bearly541
• regarding WP editors on WP:ANI
• Removal of paragraph in leaving message

Who's involved?

• User:KillerChihuahua
• User:Bearly541
• User:MrDarcy

What's going on?

The administrator is stalking me and was infringing upon my edit freedom. Administrator has been following me on Wikipedia, reverting my warnings to troublesome IPs, blatantly infringing on conversations to other users, as well as me, and deleting my content on user page. In addition, she has insulted other users. Her conduct has led me to retire on Wikipedia. After my retirement, she removed some of my information on my user page. I went to her talk page to ask her about her deletion, and about the conflicting information that she thought of me, but she deleted my message because of "trolling." I left a copy of the message on my talk page. She also violates WP:BITE and does not assume good faith. She also leaves disrespectful messages when banning users. For example, on her block log; December 18th

1. 10:57, December 18, 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) blocked "165.138.63.100 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (school vandal, study your textbooks instead.)

2. 10:54, December 18, 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) blocked "64.247.209.234 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (School vandalism (childish penis type))

3. 10:30, December 18, 2006 KillerChihuahua (Talk | contribs) protected Kwanzaa (Tis the season to be vandalizing, tra la la la la [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

What would you like to change about that?

For the administrator to treat others with respect, and for her to quit reverting my edits without a plausible reason.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Yes, via e-mail.

I agree to withdraw this mediation case if the following conditions are met:

• My userpage will be fully protected, so that admins Killer Chihuahua won't delete the facts of what had caused me to leave.
• Killer Chihuahua promises to follow WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and not stalk users, which is a clear violation of WP policy outlined in the Arbitration Committee's Eternal Equinox (Principles 1-2) decison
• All of my subpages are deleted except the following:

1. My archives (1-3)
2. User:Bearly541/Userbox/DrinksDrPepper
3. User:Bearly541/Userbox/User Fanta Strawberry
4. User:Bearly541/Userbox/adoptstate
5. User:Bearly541/christmastemplate
6. User:Bearly541/Userbox/User_Fanta_Pineapple
7. User:Bearly541/Userbox/Ebayaddict
8. User:Bearly541/Userbox/adoptstatename
9. User:Bearly541/valentinestemplate
10. User:Bearly541/Userbox

In addition, I have agreed to change the language from "indefinately banned" to "out of line," as shown on my userpage. However, I don't want Killer Chihuahua, or anyone, deleting any facts in order to make his or her case "look good," since that would be besides the point of detailing the reason why I left/am leaving. Bearly541 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I also want her to apologize, formally (not ambiguously) to me, for stalking me (clearly in violation of the Arbcom's decision -- used as precedent), for deleting facts in my letter without my permission, and for her to reverse her vandal warnings on MyKungFu's page, since they were appropriate as a course of action. I also want KC to be WARNED to follow assume good faith, WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. In the future, if someone else carries on a conversation concerning a topic unrelavent to her, she has to be asked to comment by the person or persons involved, rather than barging in on the conversation and blatantly using PA language like she has done in the past. Even though KC reversed the warnings, an admin blocked MyKungFu's sockpuppet page 24h because of disruption. Also, if I withdraw this case, I don't want this case to be deleted, since KC is running for a position for Mediation committee. If these actions aren't done, this case will persist. P.S.: This case isn't bizarre, but is an example of Wikijustice. Bearly541 20:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, maybe I'm missing something here, but since Bearly has left Wikipedia [1] (for the third or fourth time, mind you) isn't it a bit difficult for her to open a mediation case? I won't talk here of the fallaciousness and disingenuousness of her claims, their evanescence and frivolity is plain for all who have eyes with which to see and a mind with which to think, but it strikes me as rather odd that this effort has proceeded this far. After all, isn't mediation for Wikipedian's only? Well? •Jim62sch• 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, it's Wikipedians. And, Wikipedians should include all those who are formerly and currently engaged in the project. Bearly541 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no opinion on the basis of the case, I'll just point out that, as of now, we don't have a policy which says that users who declare themselves retired cannot edit. Dispite the apparent ambiguity of Bearly's statements on retirement, we cannot, as Wikipedians, take that statment as a sign that he/she has left (after all, retirement is becoming a bit of a fashion around here, to be honest), and should all him/her to continue to edit in peace, or persue dispute resolution. It is in everyone's best interests for the dispute to be resolved amicably (though on a user conduct dispute I'd prefer to see and RfC..), so that we don't lose a good editor or a good admin. Remember to assume good faith and keep it in mind that everyone can make mistakes, on both sides, and can sometimes let the Wiki and real life stresses overcome their normal sensibilities. Martinp23 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Full protection doesn't prevent admins from editing pages.
2. I think Bearly's change to her user page language is a good one. I can't imagine anyone would have a reason to delete anything there at the moment.
3. KC is beholden to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE because they are a policy and a guideline. Regarding stalking, the EE principle contains a clear "excuse" clause that, if I explained in detail the intricacies of my interaction with Bearly that are relevant to KC, I would demonstrate is most definitely applicable here for at least some of KC's actions. As I've noted on Bearly's talk page, I plan to do so if this mediation persists. I honestly would rather not do this.
4. I haven't been named as a party here, but I recommend that the offer to withdraw the mediation be accepted with appropriate modification based on my comments. I'm glad you are now open to this course of action, Bearly. I think it is best for the parties involved. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]