4,735
edits
Linguifex:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
Linguifex:Arbitration/Requests/Case (view source)
Revision as of 23:07, 17 January 2013
, 17 January 2013→Abuse of Authority by Waahlis: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | ||
=== Abuse of Authority by Waahlis: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter | === 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, {{userlinks|Chrysophylax}}, 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 {{userlinks|Herr_Dunkel}} but after careful consideration we remain convinced administrator {{userlinks|Waahlis}} 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 [[User:Waahlis|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 [[User:Waahlis|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 [[User:Waahlis|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 [[User:Herr_Dunkel|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 [[User:Herr_Dunkel|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 [[User:Herr_Dunkel|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.’ | |||