Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 19:

Hence my request here. In this case, I considered filing this request before posting to AN/I, but I take [[WP:IAR]] very seriously, balancing the necessities of the project with the disruption involved in possibly violating a sanction. I judged that an emergency existed, and that serious and permanent damage might be done, were I not to intervene. Confirming and supporting on-wiki harassment of an editor, resulting from rejected off-wiki extortion over WP content, through a block, can damage the reputation of Wikipedia, and I was willing to risk being blocked to prevent or at least warn against this damage.

I'm presenting links to the history of this incident in collapse. They are only here as an example of how the sanction might be ambiguous, not to involve ArbComm in a dispute without groundwork being laid. '''No action other than clarification is requested at this point. Sandstein has issued a "clarification" which means that I'm clearly enjoined from repetition of what triggered the AE report, whether that was a sanction violation or not.''' However, now, some days later, and with the injunction requiring all abstinence from comment on the situation outside these pages, whether as "originating party" or not, and because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr; the instant situation is being used as a claim (below) that the strict interpretation was necessary to avoid disruption, thus it may be necessary to examine that, and I have no means of doing so outside of an RfAr, otherwise I'd follow ordinary DR over ''my dispute.'' That's the result of an over-strict interpretation of the ban. I'll wait a while to see, though. Please understand that I prefer any decision to no decision. No decision leaves me wondering what the hell ArbComm intends. Some seem to believe that it was basically, "Go Away, Abd, this is our project, not yours." Fine. ArbComm can decide that. I agree, even, with half of it. At least I thought it was "our project." <small>comment revised due to shifting situation --20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)</small>

I'm presenting links to the history of this incident in collapse. They are only here as an example of how the sanction might be ambiguous, not to involve ArbComm in disputes which can and will be handled without ArbComm action, I assume. '''No action other than clarification is requested at this point, assuming that I am not blocked, and I have requested that Sandstein consider, in lieu of block, issuing an injunction clarifying the sanction pending a result here, which, if I violate, would obviously result in a block.'''

'''@SamJohnston:''' Since he is insisting so strongly here (and elsewhere around the wiki) I'll pull this part out of collapse. I urge it be read by anyone who wants to understand the situation better, though the deeper background remains described and linked in the collapse box. It seems to me that I was arrested and charged with jaywalking while someone was being mugggedmugged on the sidewalk. Definitely, I shouldn't jaywalk, in general, especially after being warned, but ... what if I crossed the street to prevent a mugging? And the police came running ... and arrested me as that notorious repeat jaywalker? And the mugged person is also arrested for "disturbing the peace," i.e., yelling and getting blood on the sidewalk? Besides, he was wanted for an unpaid traffic citation. The mugger is thanked for calling attention to these criminals. Okay, dramatic, but perhaps you get my point.

AN/I report section on off-wiki harassment: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#SamJohnston_threatened_to_harass_LirazSiri_off-wiki.2C_then_carried_out_the_plan archived discussion] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=346749671#SamJohnston_threatened_to_harass_LirazSiri_off-wiki.2C_then_carried_out_the_plan permanent link, present state]<br>

Line 36:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&diff=prev&oldid=346740700 Permanent link to request] to reconsider on Sandstein Talk.<br>

{{collapsebottom}}

'''@TenOfAllTrades.''' I wrote TOAT to consider just what came to light in the AN report discussing his block of LirazSiri, and which led to another admin reversing his action. I describe the mail in the collapse box below. <br>

'''@TenOfAllTrades.''' Again! Thanks, it's a brilliant plan to find consensus on Wikipedia: (1) Block/ban anyone you don't like. (2) Block/ban anyone who defends or supports anyone you don't like. (3) Ban anyone who objects to this, after all, they are disruptive and should instead be working on articles. (4) Done. Consensus. No more disruption. Except for all the socks, but we'll have better software soon. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{collapsetop|Replies to various involved editors and administrators}}