Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Original statement by requester

Where is the issue taking place?: User_talk:Lucky_6.9, edit history

Who's involved?: Lucky_6.9, SamAndrews and many other users, e.g.: Pumeleon, Crawfordknights, Isaac Witte, Marty Sheckley, Sjlerner, AaronCore, Alvindu, OriginalJunglist, Tzyani, TheCommish21, Ryankrameretc, Jacquelineb, Wikipediarocks17, Striver, Primetimegod, Totnesmartin, Kotbullar, Tophatdan, Ketanof92, Tonyczuchnowski, MrRooJu, JossBuckle Swami, Moviemakerx13, etc. (This statement appears as written. Mediator will check

What's going on?: Lucky_6.9 is an Admin who deletes many articles with little justification, then when users try to discuss them on his Talk page, per WP:Resolving_disputes he simply deletes the discussion and reverts the page. He appears to work closely with user WarthogDemon in this reversion practice. In the last 30 days, Lucky_6.9 has averaged at least one reversion of his own Talk page per day (more if WarthogDemon's reversions are counted). This obscures complaints about Lucky_6.9's behavior, essentially whitewashing his behavior. It is unWikipedian behavior. I tried to discuss this with Lucky_6.9 by posting on his Talk page here, and my discussion was reverted within 12 minutes by WarthogDemon "per request of Lucky".

What would you like to change about that?: Could Editors and other Admins please weigh in and strongly encourage Lucky_6.9 to follow good Wikipedia practice and not revert his own Talk page. If he is not willing, could steps please be initiated that would lead to the revocation of his Admin status. Thank you.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?: No, I would prefer that you work publicly to help enforce this Wikipedia norm of good behavior. Thank you again for your assistance!!! SamAndrews 20:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I invited here?

Why was I invited here? Lucky 6.9 doesn't ring any bells with me, and I'm not involved with any recently disputed articles. Totnesmartin 22:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask the requester. As I wrote on everyone's talk page: "If you feel you are not involved, please remove your name from the list under 'Who's involved?". (In this case, your name will only be allowed to be reinserted if a reason is given.)" For your convenience, I'll do that for you this time. — Sebastian 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep me in, i found the problem. i complained to him that he'd deleted a new article (Sulk) I'd started and saved. I was polite about it, but he deleted my complaint. This was on 23 November, too long ago to stick in my mind. Totnesmartin 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of JossBuckle Swami

I've never been involved in one of these mediations, but I'll assume this is where I make my "Statement". I'm a busy person, so I doubt I'll be able to stay involved with this case, beyond these few words.

My experience with Lucky 6.9, after all was said and done, amicable. HOWEVER, the 20-25 minutes up to that point, I found to be highly offensive, and 95% of the problem was caused by Lucky behaving exactly as this complaint registers. One evening, I discovered a somewhat unusual/suspicious article about "Alaska cruises", essentially highlighting statistics and themes associated with sailing on cruise ships in Alaskan waters. The article seemed somewhat informative to me, but had an external link that, ultimately, proved to be dubious.

Anyway, I spent some time working to check on that external link and to improve the article content (and moved it to a re-named space), so that it would actually be a more useful destination for other Wikipedia readers. Lucky intervened, unilaterally deleting the article, with no warning. When I complained that this was out-of-process, he immediately called into question my character -- "how could someone with such little time on Wikipedia know anything about process?" was the basic gist. Then, he erased my comments on his Talk page, if I recall, multiple times. Then, (and this was the really laughable part) threatened that if I continued to "harrass" him, I was going to get blocked.

This is a despicable way to treat any user -- new or seasoned. But, I'm afraid it's more typical of the out-of-control admin behavior on Wikipedia, as they work to ruthlessly stamp out useful content on Wikipedia, if it has even a whiff of commercial bias. They would rather delete articles than improve them. And, they would rather erase complaints than deal with them in an adult fashion.

I don't want to see Lucky "punished" too severely, because, as I said, we did come to an understanding -- but, it is clear that if he's doing this to multiple users on a regular basis, he's really not learning how to "play nice" on Wikipedia. --JossBuckle Swami 00:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]