Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleConduct of administrator, KillerChihuahua
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyUser:Bearly541
Parties involvedUser:KillerChihuahua
CommentWithdrawn

Mediation Case: KillerChihuahua[edit]

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information[edit]

Request made by: Bearly541 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
Who's involved?
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.

Mediator response[edit]

Compromise offers[edit]

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Withdrawal (Plea Bargain)[edit]


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]

I agree to withdraw this case, since Martinp23, who is on the Mediation Committee, is showing clear bias for Killer Chihuahua on her discussion page. I don't want to waste my time editing a on a site where some administrators are disrespectful to the users who want to improve the project, even though the project is unreliable. However, I want this page to be kept for historical purposes. Bearly541 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your choice (and am slightly perturbed by your bouncing of an email I sent in response to one of yours). I'll make it clear here, for the record. All that I said to KC which could possibly be interpreted as bias applies equally to you - I feel that you are commendable for bringing this to DR, and have offered you my help in emails - I would be grateful if I could continue this discussion with you via email - if you agree, please email me to indicate your willingness. Martinp23 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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]
I was named as a party here, but my involvement in this is extremely limited - Bearly posted a note to my talk page asking for help, KC responded to Bearly on my talk page, and I took no action against either user except to tell KC that I thought following Bearly to my talk page was inappropriate. That should not be interpreted as support for Bearly's position in this mediation request, and because I have no other involvement in this case, I'm striking my name out of the above list. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather confused what the "dispute" is about. The links do not support the assertions made - some of them have nothing to do with Bearly, others seem unrelated to KC. No evidence of stalking was provided, not evidence of "reverting my warnings to troublesome IPs" (I see one reversion, which is entirely correct), and "delet[ion of] my content on user page" isn't inappropriate when the content was a personal attack. The other links are clearly spurious, since they do not deal with the relationship between KillerChihuahua and Bearly.

The MedCab is an informal process for dealing with disputes between Wikipedians. Why? Because disputes distract us from writing an encyclopaedia. Since Bearly has indicated that she no longer intends to edit Wikipedia, there is no longer a dispute to mediate. The absence of a resolution to this dispute will not get in the way of either Bearly or KillerChihuahua editing articles, since there will be no further interactions between the two of them. So, problem solved.

Bearly's "offer" is puzzling. If she is no longer a Wikipedian, she has no say as to the fate of her user page. She is free to request deletion of her user page and subpages (but not her Talk pages). Unless she wants KC to delete her pages, that request has no bearing on this dispute. Her demands regarding user page protection fall into the same category. Unless she wants KC to protect the pages, the request doesn't belong here. Her demands that KC follow policy are just strange. Everyone is obliged to follow policy. No one can make a deal to either follow, or not follow policy. Of course, Bearly has not provided any evidence that KC has not followed policy, so this point is also irrelevant.

As for the demand of an apology - I agree that an apology is in line here. Bearly should apologise to KC for the spurious accusations and general harrassment. The issue of a warning has no play here either - this is an informal process which seeks to find common ground and resolve disputes. Bearly is free to "warn" KC, just as KC is free to "warn" Bearly. Like anything in a MedCab mediation, it has no official standing. More importantly though, I don't see how it will heal the rift between Bearly and KC, and how it will improve their ability to edit harmoniously.

Of course, if Bearly is actually planning to quit, there's no grounds for mediation. After all, this is an informal mechanism for solving disagreements between editors. Not for solving disputes between editors and ex-editors. That's an off-Wikipedia issue, and using the resources of Wikipedia to resolve issues is inappropriate. Guettarda 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's important to remember that it's more often than not impossible for Meditaion, a compormise seeking process, to find resolutions to user conduct disputes - that's what the community is for. After all, who's going to voluntarily agree to a ban or probabtion (in extreme cases).. - not many! Martinp23 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is nice concerning the situation. Yet, when I warn her about following WP:BITE or assume good faith, she deletes or ignores. I just don't want her to edit my page once I left. The facts are there. The interpretation depends on the user. Since she is reverting my edits all of the time, I might as well give her the user name and password to this account. Bearly541 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be anything to mediate here. Bearly is complaining about admin actions and behavioral issues. Mediation isn't for that. Bearly should either file an RfC or make a report on ANI or something. This mediation attempt however is a complete waste of time. (I think an ANI report or an RfC would be a waste of time also but at least those would be in venues that might in some reality make some minimal sense). JoshuaZ 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While your input is appreciated, perhaps you missed that Bearly541 has withdrawn[2] her request for mediation. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-17_KillerChihuahua&oldid=1142595421"