request regarding current rfar clarification there is an open request for clarification regarding a sanction decided at wikipedia arbitration requests case abd william m connolley see live link or permanent link is the only arbitrator to comment there so far i agree with him and unless other arbitrators wish to address the issues raised i support the close of this request with no finding or clarification my reason for this it is apparent that any useful clarification would require more discussion than can be accomplished at rfar clarification and that i was blocked while this request was pending for comments made in the request itself is an additional impediment there is no need for extra debate or argument i have stated that i am willing to accept a tighter restriction than the way in which i interpreted the sanction pending clarification by arbcomm so the status quo is that the restriction is tight though not necessarily as tight as defined by the administrator who blocked me i do not consider myself restricted from what the sanction explicitly permits and i'd argue that he did so consider i accepted sandstein's decision clarification as a neutral administrator pending arbcomm review not future perfect's who was already involved and i had already claimed that he was involved in dispute with me i will continue to respect sandstein's tightening as standing and binding on me and will interpret this very narrowly but as originally stated and it did permit legitimate comment before arbcomm when i am an originating party as is normal normally i can having filed respond there to comments from other editors also made there which is what i did arbcomm specifically allowed me to originate a case and if i'm clearly involved as well i see nothing in the sanction which requires me to avoid it i will not use this as a loophole to drive trucks through carrying my opinion about disputes between other editors and i will avoid in such a filing if it happens unnecessary mention of disputes between other editors obviously if i file a case claiming involved use of tools by an admin i will present evidence of involvement and existing disputes or other reason that recusal would have been required which would only mention other disputes peripherally and which will not be an attempt to resolve those other issues i hope that there is more clerk attention to an actual rfar than there has been to the existing rfar clarification which as it stands includes an illegitimate edit by someone other than me to the material i filed it's been pointed out by with clerk attention requested and nothing was done nevertheless if the request is closed without action it's moot the real point here is that if clerks were following filings before arbcomm surely this would have been noticed and reverted or moved and possibly the editor warned