User talk:SebastianHelm/Lucky 6.9

Lucky 6.9 mediation

• case page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. - This has been deleted by Lucky 6.9 without due process.
• archived incident: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive164#Lucky_6.9_blocking_good_users

Does This Concern Me Or No?

I just noticed this: Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. You've said (somewhere) that everyone involved, you've notified. I've gotten no notification so I'm not completely sure whether I should be a part of this or not... -WarthogDemon 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, absolutely! I'm sorry, your name wasn't in the list of "who's involved". Please do participate! — Sebastian 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF???

Hi, Sebstian. I have a notice at the top of my page regarding comments sice I reserve the right to revert rude and inappropriate comments due to all the NPP patrolling that I do. The "user" who brought up the issue was a sockpuppet of a banned user who had an edit history stretching back two whole days. The names he cited were all banned socks. - Lucky 6.9 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see your statement on the mediation page. You are free to write it on the talk page, or, if you accept me as the mediator, I can work it into the "What's going on?" section. If you would rather have a different mediator, please let me know (per wiki or email) so we can find someone else. Thank you for your cooperation. — Sebastian 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm really angry

Look, I don't know if this "Mediation Cabal" is or was a joke, but I am not pleased that I just spent 15 minutes writing up my comments, and then (surprise!) Lucky goes and deletes the discussion! Sebastian, if you are for real, if the Mediation is for real, I would say that Lucky needs to be blocked for a month, so that he can begin to learn respect for innocent Wikipedians. This is the last straw. --JossBuckle Swami 02:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Stay tuned! — Sebastian 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I reported the issue here, and another admin said they'd investigate and recommend desysopment. — Sebastian 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think the guy just needs a break. Maybe a month. I think he's a reasonable person. It's just that he's got a REALLY bad habit, and perhaps some delusional paranoia. How did I "threaten" him? Is all criticism a threat to Lucky? --JossBuckle Swami 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're right. Another, maybe bigger, problem is the culture on WP:ANI. I don't like the name calling against the one person who did the right thing and promised to investigate it. Also, it is sad that they focus on SamAndrews being a sockpuppet: He has done nothing wrong with this account, and since Lucky 6.9 obviously blocks people for the wrong reason, he may well have had a darn good reason for creating a new account. — Sebastian 03:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How was blocking an obvious sockpuppet blocking "for the wrong reason?" His first edit was to my talk page and he then threw in a few legit edits before running up a comment regarding how I choose to maintain my talk page. You're absolutely right. I need a freaking break if it's come to this. Merry Christmas. - Lucky 6.9 03:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the case I opened about this, where I dedicated a whole table to explain this very question? — Sebastian 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I said: "Stay tuned", so I should give you an update: The case on WP:ANI has been archived now. I asked some relevant questions on Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Coordination_archives#What_to_do_when_one_party_deletes_the_case.3F, but so far I got only a discouraging reply. So, unless you or someone else asks me to continue, I will just put the case at rest. — Sebastian 17:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I say that this particular case can rest. However, I would also say that the next time Lucky deletes someone's even half-legitimate comments from a Discussion page, he really needs to be officially sanctioned. It's a horrible habit to erase the thoughtful work of other people who have every right to state an opinion. --JossBuckle Swami 15:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

JossBuckle Swami, have you not perused his edit history? Look at his talk page history for all the times he's edited his own and simply deleted people's requests and rationale. This is not a new problem! Invariably, he deletes something, and the author goes and asks why their work disappeared contrary to policy and without explanation, which then he deletes the asking off his talk page. His edit history is FULL of this. His abusive attitude is rampant - just in the last 48 hours, he warned a vandal, and included the comment "BTW, pay more attention in spelling class, OK?" in both the warning and the edit summary. This is totally inappropriate (WP:BITE). Before yesterday I had never heard of Lucky 6.9, but as I look throughout his history of abuse that has continued unchanged since 2004, I am appalled that this guy is still an admin! Reswobslc 02:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer surprised by what goes on at Wikipedia. This weekend, I learned that an admin can erase my personal dialogue with other users' talk pages (dialogue which 100% of them (so far) have stated was of some value to them), solely because my discussion happened to include an external link to a blog post that reviews a non-Wikipedia wiki, and I chose to copy the message to about a dozen users. I am, therefore, a spammer, and the site reviewed in the blog article I mentioned is threatened with permanent blacklist. It's so funny, because if I had been instead mentioning Wikia.com (Jimbo's little enterprise), I would have been roundly praised for adding to the ALREADY 3,300+ external links to Wikia.com from Wikipedia space. Very little involving Wikipedia politics is fair, reasonable, even-handed, rational, or sane. That's what I have learned in my short time here. --JossBuckle Swami 15:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions by confused users

I guess I missed everything, except I don't know what's going on.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipediarocks17 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

I assume you came here because of my message on your talk page about Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page. Lucky 6.9 deleted that case without warning or explanation, while people were working on it. Make your own conclusion for his reasons. — Sebastian 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

im confused. what does all this mean? Crawfordknights 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

See above

Bro, did i miss anything? i had forgotten about this and did not even figure out what it was about... was it anything important, or should i forget about it? --Striver - talk 20:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't have a problem with User:Lucky 6.9 or User:SamAndrews, then just forget about it. — Sebastian 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

WarthogDemon's question

Does this concern me still or no? Because even I'm not sure . . . I was brought up and was suddenly dropped as quickly as I was. I have no clue IF I'm still involved, and wish someone would tell me, for I too am quite confused. >_> -WarthogDemon 17:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure. As you know, I mentioned your name on WP:ANI#Lucky_6.9_blocking_good_users, which is not closed yet, so I would recommend watching that discussion. Of course, it's really a pain to watch all of WP:ANI just for one case. It distracts me, too, so I will propose to move that chapter to a separate page. — Sebastian 19:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I dragged you into something so unpleasant. Your intensive involvement with Lucky 6.9 is quite unusual, though. Please forgive me if I'm too intruding, but I am still curious about it; even Lucky 6.9 himself wrote "I don't know what I did to deserve an ally like you". Would you care to satisfy our curiousity? — Sebastian 19:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A little further above he also thanks me for seeing through the "pure booshwah." When I first saw SamAndrews I was actually hesitant on reverting him for worry that complications would arise such as this. I had my suspicions that this was a troll or a sockpuppet. Eventually I reverted that but left the Cabal case untouched. When nothing seemed to come from it, I had assumed Lucky 6.9 had or was dealing with the matter in confidence via email, though I was apparently wrong. I'm now wondering if I should've reported that user right off or something. Regardless, if you want to see where I first asked him if I could help, it's here: [[1]]. That and this problem are the only things that Lucky was speaking of in the statement you mentioned. I wasn't aware that this would be considered "intensive" involvement, and I'm wondering if I'm wondering if I offered to do more than I should. >_> -WarthogDemon 19:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for the link. There may be a confusion about the link: It is Lucky 6.9 asking (or ordering) you for help, not the other way round. Anyway, I owe you an explanation for what I meant by "intensive involvement". I have never seen anyone do edit third people's comments on another user's talk page, and it seems that you did a lot of that. I'm not saying that this is bad. I could write more, but now's not the time. I only wanted to quickly reply to you. Maybe I'll pick this up after Christmas.

Shwoops, sorry. That was his reply to my question on HIS talk page, here [2]. I apologize for the confusion and my delay in replying. -WarthogDemon 01:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I realize that you were just trying to be helpful. You clearly acted upon Lucky 6.9's request and with his knowledge, so I don't see how this could be held against you. In the unlikely event that this should ever change you'll be the first I'll tell. — Sebastian 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. :) I am curious though, may I continue to help Lucky, or should I cease? (So far I've only been adding subst:Unsigned and keeping things in chonrological order; keeping all comments). -WarthogDemon 06:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. The majority of administrators played the deletions down, so it seems you're free to continue. If you ask my personal opinion, though, then I'd rather only delete abusive posts, because of WP:TALK#Etiquette – and because that's what Lucky wrote in bold letters over his talk page: "If I've deleted your work and you have a concern, I'll gladly discuss the issue. Abusive posts will be ignored and subsequently rolled back..." — Sebastian 07:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall try to be wary and do that. Thanks and thank you for keeping me up to date :) -WarthogDemon 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediator or prosecutor?

Sebastian, I don't understand how you can present yourself as a neutral mediator when you're making comments that very clearly indicate you've taken sides:

• "since Lucky 6.9 obviously blocks people for the wrong reason"
• "If this mediation fails, it is up to requester to bring the case up at arbitration"
• "Lucky 6.9 is fighting people who disagree with him by various actions up to deleting mediation pages and blocking users who, as far as I can see, have done nothing wrong, other than they could be dangerous to him."
• "Lucky 6.9 deleted that case without warning or explanation, while people were working on it. Make your own conclusion for his reasons."
• Then in response to someone saying Lucky should be blocked for a month you say, "Absolutely! Stay tuned!"

You sound like a judge or a prosecutor, not a mediator. Sarah 08:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah, thank you for looking into this and for taking the time to ask. You are right: I no longer see myself as a mediator in this particular case. I am grateful that you made me aware that my reason wasn't as obvious as I thought it was.

Lucky 6.9 deleted the mediation case, in which he was a party, without notice or due process. I felt like someone had pulled out the "mediator" chair from beneath me and had catapulted me to the witness box. When I further noticed that Lucky 6.9 had blocked the other party indefinitely without appropriate explanation I felt under threat to be blocked myself. So I reported the incident as fast as I could. Most of the quotes were written under the shock of Lucky 6.9's deletion and block. If I wrote it now, I would use less emotional words, such as "block indefinitely" instead of "fight". I also realize now how my use of present tense in WP:ANI ("I am a mediator") confused people. Do you think it would be appropriate to change it now?

"Lucky 6.9 is fighting people who disagree ...", "Lucky 6.9 deleted that case ...": Apart from the emotional undertone, these are statements of facts, which were important for the incident. If you see any factual misrepresentation in them, please let me know, and I will clarify or correct it.

"Absolutely! Stay tuned!" I responded to the overall gist of his message, which was "I'm angry; someone should do something about it." I make a difference between what I write on my talk page and on WP:ANI. (Incidentally, even Lucky 6.9 himself writes "You're absolutely right" in this very section.) Please note that I did not assume the role of judge or prosecutor there: I made no statement about how Lucky 6.9 should get punished on WP:ANI, but presented the evidence as objectively as I could. If I may say so, I believe I was more factual there than others who were not involved. On my talk page, OTOH, I may sometimes write my private opinion.

"... for the wrong reason": Now, I would word that differently: I don't know Lucky 6.9's reasons, so I should say "... without appropriate explanation". His summary read: "Trolling, vandalism" without any evidence for such an accusation. Later, the discussion shifted to the question if SamAndrews was a sockpuppet, which may well be. But this is not what Lucky 6.9 had said when he blocked that account. Even now, I am not aware of anything more concrete than the vague allegation. When I see something like this, I feel compelled to side with the underdog.

"If this mediation fails ...": This is the only statement I wrote before Lucky 6.9 deleted the mediation case. I think I wrote it in the mediation case itself. Since I can not see the case anymore, I have to rely on my memory for this. Allow me to explain the big picture: As a mediator, I am concerned about the layout of our mediation pages, which puts the requester's accusation in a prime space. To get rid of this discrimination I came up with the idea to treat a mediation case like any other wiki page: Separate between "project" and "talk" page. I wrote a note on top of the requester's statement to encourage the other party to edit it. My plan was to eventually turn this into an unbiased description, as I did on User:SebastianHelm/LTTE. As a first step, I toned down the language. The original statement said something like "Lucky 6.9 should be banned", and my intention was to clarify that this was not the point of this mediation. If this wasn't clear enough then I apologize; I'm not a native speaker. Would you have a suggestion how I can better express this in the future?

Again, thank you for your message; I am excited about this opportunity to grow in an area which I enjoy, and which might even grow into a vocation eventually. Please don't hesitate to give me any other feedback - I need it. — Sebastian 19:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

==Luck6.9==

I was told that you opend a mediation case against Luck6.9 I also had a [Baby Article] deleated on an accoutn of vandalism. It was about an user created goverment in the popular game [secondlife] located on the teen grid. It was a movement that contains many documents, quotes and history. It even has a forum and website soon to be launched. She an/or He deleated it within the first 5 minutes I left it alone to log an and fetch history from its founder and any important document portaining to its history. I understand He and.or She is on a forced Wikibreak right now but I was rather sad it was deleated on the spot. I was hoping soon to start and artcle on the internet phenomenom [Raptor Jesus] but I was afraid it would be sho down again. She also deleated all the messages I sent to her off her user page and also diddnt reply to my emials. I dont know how a Mediation works but could you help me out here Im new with how this works and could use somone to help exlpain some things. I hope I helped in the case of mediation with Luck6.9, please get abck to me.

Isaac Witte 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)