Linguifex:Arbitration/Requests/Case
This is the page where all cases for arbitration may be initiated. Please do not open a case yourself, only the Owner-in-Council may.
Case
Abuse of Authority by Waahlis
Initiated by 
Chrysophylax at 23:13, 15 January 2013 (CET)
Involved parties
- Chrysophylax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Waahlis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Party 2
- Herr_Dunkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Party 3
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by {Party 1}
I would like to see proper wording by both users regarding the actions taken on the 14th of January and of the accusations. Please, add your statements. Try to be concise. Do not edit any field but your own. Any such edits which do not conform to this will be instantly reverted. Do note, this is not the actual case, but a formal filing of one.
Statement by {Party 2}
I my defence I wish to clearly state that no spite was ever intended. No indication of spite, ill faith or diminutivisation is apparent judging from my message, nor from previous conversations on this wiki with the claimant.
In defence of retroactive application of the policy guidelines, with emphasis on guidelines, it ought to be clarified that the action was succeded by a civil message on the claimant's discussion page, and that the claimant received no repercussions of the claimed retroactive application of the policy guideline. As such no true application of the policy occurred. Instead, only revertion of the page blanking was performed, acting through the legitimacy of implied guidelines. Whilst not stated (by the time) in the policy, editing of other users' comments is and was severely discouraged. Whilst this may not be optimal, nor is the wiki. The Linguifex wiki is under construction, including policy guidelines.
Per the claimant's logic, this would legitimise the violation of these implied guidelines if not expressed in writing, which would damage, inhibit and impede the continuation and construction of the wiki, thus legitimising the revertion. This concludes that the retroactive application of the G:9 paragraph in the Linguifex deletion policy acted as a reminder of written implementation, also explicating the lack of repercussions.
In response to the similes of democratic law, there seems to be a need for clarification and definition to ease categorisation:
- The Linguifex wiki is not a democratic nation. It lacks a constitution and legislature.
- As such, the Linguifex wiki guidelines are not laws.
- As such, enforcing wiki guidelines as law is inappropriate and exaggerative.
As always, sincerely, 
Waahlis 21:52, 16 January 2013 (CET)
Statement by {Party 3}
I claim that Waahlis should not have rolled back my blanking of my talk page, and then further justified it with policies he implemented after said blanking.
I have provided examples from both the German Federal and Swedish constitutions where both of those disallow such retroactive application of new policies as a general guideline to show that such retroactive application of new policies isn't endorsed by at least two democratic nations.
Furthermore, I claim he used his administrative powers to introduce said policy to spite me, which constitutes, in my opinion, an abuse of authority.
18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET) Er Dessen Name Nicht Genannt Werden Darf
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Abuse of Authority by Waahlis: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter
The case will be heard by the counsel.
Report
- O populus linguificum, audite vocem nostram! Hoc est voluntas suprema concilii nostri!
- ‘Hear us, makers of language! This is the supreme will of our council!’
We, Chrysophylax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Owner-in-Council, Guardian of the Peace, who would act upon the will of the Council for Arbitration act solely in this case. Over concerns of conflict of interest we have taken upon us the role of judge and legislator.
On the allegation of abuse
1) We regret the feeling of abuse experienced by Herr_Dunkel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) but after careful consideration we remain convinced administrator Waahlis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) acted in good faith on the basis that his actions, while somewhat inaptly timed, appear to have been carried out in the interest of the community as a whole. We remind User:Herr_Dunkel of etiquette normal: the editing of others comments on a talk page without their permission is heavily and strongly discouraged. It is furthermore controversial to delete comments.
Waahlis absolved
2) We therefore find Waahlis innocent of abuse of his position of authority. With understanding of the current situation of Linguifex, still in its phase of maturation, we advise Waahlis to observe a more moderate and explicative approach at modifications of policies which have great ramifications to lessen the chance of future incidents as these. Do note; we do not dispute the validity of Waahlis actions.
On the nature of policies - I
3) We reiterate the point raised by Waahlis in which he rightfully points out the fact that Linguifex is not a democratic nation. Policies and guidelines are not laws. They are codified means of response to different situations. They are not set in stone. Thus responding to them as if they were the laws of a democratic nation which by its very nature has differing needs is not only incorrect but preposterous. The administration may overturn or modify any of these policies in response to occurring needs as so it should. If Herr_Dunkel feels that a policy is out of order or deserves to be amended he is welcome to present his arguments thus at the relevant talk page in a clear and concise manner.
On the nature of policies - II
4) Furthermore, considering the fact that a wiki is by nature a dynamic website with ever-changing content; policies dealing with (and not limited to) formatting, editing, and so on, can be reasonably expected to have repercussions for content from before the date of the enactment of aforementioned policies. Were it not so, no pre-policy content would be able to be edited in line to conform with future content policies. This would effectively cripple the wiki and severely question the use of any policy. This is understandably a laughable situation.
On authoritative abuse
5) We acknowledge the concerns by Herr_Dunkel over authoritative abuse of the ability to enact policies. Although this is a somewhat valid concern, we wish to take this opportunity to remind Herr_Dunkel that there are several members on the administration for this very reason: to prevent rot and petty power abuse.
On future allegations
6) We remind the community as a whole that an accusation of abuse regarding a member of the community is not a light remark to be thrown around. It is a most serious allegation which merits the full attention of the administration. We implore you to find alternative means of civil dispute resolution. The observed rapid decay of dialogue between the two parties is deplorable.
Final verdict
- Accusatio dimissa.
- ‘Accusation dismissed.’
- Hoc est voluntas nostra.
- ‘This is our will.’
— Owner-in-Council Chrysophylax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)