Linguifex:Arbitration/Requests/Case - Revision history

EmperorZelos: Need category

2013-01-18T15:04:39Z

Need category

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 18 January 2013
Line 85:		Line 85:

	— Owner-in-Council {{userlinks\|Chrysophylax}}		— Owner-in-Council {{userlinks\|Chrysophylax}}

			[[Category:Arbitrations]]

Chrysophylax: /* Final verdict */

2013-01-17T23:09:36Z

Final verdict

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 17 January 2013
Line 83:		Line 83:
	:''Hoc est voluntas nostra.''		:''Hoc est voluntas nostra.''
	:‘This is our will.’		:‘This is our will.’

			— Owner-in-Council {{userlinks\|Chrysophylax}}

Chrysophylax: /* Abuse of Authority by Waahlis: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter */

2013-01-17T23:07:16Z

Abuse of Authority by Waahlis: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-=== Abuse of Authority by Waahlis: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0> ===
+=== Abuse of Authority by Waahlis: Arbitrator's opinion on hearing this matter ===
+The case will be heard by the counsel.

Waahlis: /* Statement by {Party 2} */

2013-01-16T20:52:48Z

Statement by {Party 2}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 16 January 2013
Line 27:		Line 27:

	=== Statement by {Party 2} ===		=== 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, [[File:Waahlis.png\|35px\|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis\|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 21:52, 16 January 2013 (CET)

	=== Statement by {Party 3} ===		=== Statement by {Party 3} ===

Herr Dunkel: /* Statement by {Party 3} */

2013-01-16T17:20:10Z

Statement by {Party 3}

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 16 January 2013
Line 29:		Line 29:

	=== Statement by {Party 3} ===		=== 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.<br/>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.<br/>Furthermore, I claim he used his administrative powers to introduce said policy to spite me, which constitutes, in my opinion, an abuse of authority.<br/>18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET)		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.<br/>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.<br/>Furthermore, I claim he used his administrative powers to introduce said policy to spite me, which constitutes, in my opinion, an abuse of authority.<br/>18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET) [[User_talk:Herr Dunkel\|'''<span style="color:black;">Er Dessen Name Nicht Genannt Werden Darf</span>''']]

	=== Clerk notes ===		=== Clerk notes ===

Herr Dunkel: /* Statement by {Party 3} */

2013-01-16T17:11:15Z

Statement by {Party 3}

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 16 January 2013
Line 29:		Line 29:

	=== Statement by {Party 3} ===		=== 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.<br/>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.<br/>Furthermore, I claim he used his administrative powers to introduce said policy to spite me, which constitutes an abuse of authority.<br/>18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET)		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.<br/>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.<br/>Furthermore, I claim he used his administrative powers to introduce said policy to spite me, which constitutes, in my opinion, an abuse of authority.<br/>18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET)

	=== Clerk notes ===		=== Clerk notes ===

Herr Dunkel: /* Statement by {Party 3} */

2013-01-16T17:10:45Z

Statement by {Party 3}

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 16 January 2013
Line 29:		Line 29:

	=== Statement by {Party 3} ===		=== 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.<br/>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.<br/>18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET)		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.<br/>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.<br/>Furthermore, I claim he used his administrative powers to introduce said policy to spite me, which constitutes an abuse of authority.<br/>18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET)

	=== Clerk notes ===		=== Clerk notes ===

Herr Dunkel: /* Statement by {Party 3} */

2013-01-16T17:09:56Z

Statement by {Party 3}

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 16 January 2013
Line 29:		Line 29:

	=== Statement by {Party 3} ===		=== 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.<br/>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.<br/>18:09, 16 January 2013 (CET)

	=== Clerk notes ===		=== Clerk notes ===

Chrysophylax: /* Abuse of Authority by Waahlis */

2013-01-15T22:23:58Z

Abuse of Authority by Waahlis

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 15 January 2013
Line 24:		Line 24:

	=== Statement by {Party 1} ===		=== Statement by {Party 1} ===
	I would like to ~~hear~~ proper ~~arguments~~ regarding the actions taken on the 14th of January and the accusations ~~levied thereof~~. 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.		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} ===		=== Statement by {Party 2} ===

Chrysophylax at 22:22, 15 January 2013

2013-01-15T22:22:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 15 January 2013
Line 9:		Line 9:
	<!-- use {{admin\|username}} if the party is an administrator -->		<!-- use {{admin\|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
	*{{userlinks\|Chrysophylax}}, ''filing party''		*{{userlinks\|Chrysophylax}}, ''filing party''
	*{{userlinks\|Waahlis}}		*{{userlinks\|Waahlis}}, ''Party 2''
	*{{userlinks\|Herr_Dunkel}}		*{{userlinks\|Herr_Dunkel}}, ''Party 3''
	<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->		<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->

Line 24:		Line 24:

	=== Statement by {Party 1} ===		=== Statement by {Party 1} ===
			I would like to hear proper arguments regarding the actions taken on the 14th of January and the accusations levied thereof. 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.

	=== Statement by {Party 2} ===		=== Statement by {Party 2} ===