Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-17 Werner Erhard

New party
indicated he/she would like to participate in the mediation. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, can either add emself here or, if you provide a diff for when ey said so, you can do so. However, please see my new mediator note above. &mdash; Sebastian 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OTSR questions
Is the OTSR ticket a gag-order, a trump card, or a threat? I believe I have a right to know. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration; Thank you for your patience so far. Believe me, I find this frustrating, too. I have been trying to find out more about the ticket or OTRS, but all I could find was WP:OTRS and the advice Don't revert OTRS actions.
 * However, regarding your second sentence: What do you base your belief on? IANAL, but it seems natural to me that Wikipedia Foundation should have the same right as any other other organization or company in the US to keep its legal documents under lock and key. &mdash; Sebastian 00:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless the action was being used to pursue an anonymous user. This is illegal here. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what you mean. &mdash; Sebastian 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the OTRS ticket is a legal maneuver/posturing to get Wiki to give my identity, Wiki cannot legally do so, if my understanding of privacy is concerned. Again, I ask you read and respond to the e-mails I have set you in the past hour. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh....no. The OTRS tickets on this article have existed well before you began editing this article. And your understanding of privacy as well, is wrong. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See my reply on user talk:SebastianHelm. &mdash; Sebastian 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's none of those. Please review what OTRS actually is. We respond to complaints, legal concerns, help requests etc. These may include things such as court orders, subpoenas, private information, and other things that due to both the WMF privacy policy, and the Access to nonpublic data policy, cannot be shared. OTRS volunteers are chosen by the foundation and are trusted to deal with those complaints. Within that group, the legal team are specially trusted to deal with legal concerns and correspondence with a complainant's lawyers. Even going beyond the fact that such conversations are clearly privileged, there is an expectation of privacy. Therefore, beyond the fact that we cannot share OTRS tickets with non-OTRS members, we especially cannot share OTRS legal queue concerns, even within the general realm of OTRS users. As for "illegality" where you live, that's irrelevant, and probably incorrect as well.

You seem to have an especially negative, almost paranoid view that people are out to get you, Arcana. Please look at it from our perspective. We have a highly contentious article, which as been a problem long before you started editing it, involving a litigious person, who, among other interested parties, is aware of the article. We're ensuring that everyone, both the subject of the article, the foundation, and even you, are protected in this. Everything would go a lot smoother if you stopped fighting every step of the way.

Sebastian, I've briefed Daniel on everything there is to know about this ticket, despite the fact that he doesn't actually have the access to view it. He'll be able to help you out.

We should also note that before mediation none of the other levels of dispute resolution were followed; i.e. talk page consensus, request for comment, WP:3O, etc. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your long reply. Regarding the comment that WP:DR steps have not been followed: That is true, but then again, you haven't done so, either. It is your deletion blanking that triggered this case - a deletion that provides no explanation other than the OTRS number, which provides no information to any of us except for you. It is precisely for that reason that we can't apply the recommended WP:DR steps. &mdash; Sebastian 01:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blanking, not deletion. As for dispute resolution, OTRS specifically exists to work faster and more effectively than the DR process. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  06:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an unsubstantiated claim that is irrelevant to this case. If you like, we can discuss it at a more appropriate location. &mdash; Sebastian 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an especially negative, almost paranoid view that people are out to get you, Arcana...Everything would go a lot smoother if you stopped fighting every step of the way.
 * Swatjester, please refrain from conjecture, psychoanalysis, personal attacks, and assumptions. I have done nothing but follow protocol here and the last bit of that quoted statement shows some hostility and bias on your part. Hold yourself to the higher standard for which you have accepted as an administrator and please afford me the respect which with I deserve. I find your statements to be unprofessional and disrespectful, and I will not tolerate it any further. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. I have not personally attacked you, I'm simply pointing out that you are being rather hostile (as evidenced by your above statement) and it's making this process more difficult than it needs to be. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  — Preceding undated comment added 06:17, November 21, 2007
 * Well, you triggered Arcana's buttons by calling "almost paranoid". This certainly was not helpful. But I must admit, Arcana's reply perfectly proved your point that Arcana's attitude was not helpful, either. &mdash; Sebastian 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to close this case
Both David and I have tried for four days to move both parties towards a productive solution of the issue. I have privately communicated with each side, and I must sadly conclude that I failed. If my comediator agrees, I therefore motion to close this case. Both parties have the right to go to ArbCom, but I will not be able to attest goodwill for either party. &mdash; Sebastian 17:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where are the other parties anyway? I'm not considering myself as an actual involved party here, but Ftord and Saladdas (I think I spelled those wrong) don't seem to be active here? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that they're not participating, and a decision can be reached by default. Maybe Seb is referring to you. I have no idea. I hope you've gotten by e-mail, btw. You can respond in any manner you wish if you want to. E-mail or talk is fine, just wanted to see where you were at with what I sent. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediation does require two parties with a difference of opinion. As the person who caused the dispute to occur through his OTRS duties, it would be logical that Swatjester takes the form of the "other party" to present the "conflicting view". Of course, mediation is voluntary, so if one main party doesn't wish to participate then mediation fails.  Daniel  22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess anyone reading this can understand how confused and nervous I am with this process. All I know is Seb wants out, and he let me know via this page and an e-mail sent. I have no other information. Don't know how this process works in this situation, still unsure. Please advise. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See reply below. &mdash; Sebastian 01:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: Where are the other parties anyway? I'm not considering myself as an actual involved party here...: Of course you are involved – see Daniel’s reply above. It doesn’t matter who the requestor puts in the form, but who is needed for an agreement. There is no point in bringing anybody else to the table as long as you are not willing to cooperate. I am not just saying that, but it is evidenced by your above statement, which everybody can read. What people can not see is that both Daniel and I implored you to let us know anything about the case, but you refused to give me any information other than what is publically available, and Daniel assured me that your "briefing" did not contain any specifics that would have allowed mediation. &mdash; Sebastian 01:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed
I followed Wiki protocol to the best of my ability, as I've articulated above. Yes, I'm new, and I'm asking for assistance on establishing a non-fiction book a a good source. I don't grasp all of OTRS, but I accept what SWATjester was able to provide as to what its function is. And SWATjester, I've sent you an e-mail explaining my request for MedCab, and the situation as I understand it. Sebastian, as I've mentioned to you in e-mail, I'd like for this to proceed, and with the information I do understand, there is no reason for this not to. Let's not make mountains out of molehills. I'm agreeing to be bound by that y'all. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that you feel frustrated, but there was no point in continuing this anyway. As Daniel explained, it takes two cooperating partners for a mediation. Neither you nor I could have changed that.
 * The only difference is in how you look at the end of this. If you had shown a true interest in cooperation and respect for the other side’s need to protect Wikipedia from legal threats then I would have helped you, e.g. by attesting your goodwill in case this goes to ArbCom. Unfortunately, I was not able to bring this across to you in my e-mails. &mdash; Sebastian 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you were as clear as you could be, and given how much about all of this is vague (per info given to you and Daniel), this MedCab got lost in Wikipolitics as the OTRS has been a trump card or obstruction. You did the best you could, I e-mailed SWATjester and and got no response, so we did do the best we could. Again, I have no idea what the legal issue overriding this MedCab is, and neither do you or Daniel. There's only so much goodwill when there's nil to work with. I've cooperated, you've cooperated...there's nothing left here. So be it. No need to further it if you and Dan are working with handcuffs on and I don't blame you. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)