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).