::No crime or complicity, as I said above. The ''rulebook' holds no one to these things, as opposed to what personal principles would ask of us off line. 

 ::It's surely ironical that I appear to be defending an editor who I privately thought made an extremely poor judgement of questionable intent in reporting you, while grilling you when my clashes with you from the beginning of your entry into wiki cannot belie the very hiugh estimation of your scholarship and commitment to the project. I and many others think your presence here invaluable to the I/P area. But I just hold 'our side' to standards of clarity and precision I've never expected from the 'other side', since many there seem more enchanted by the power games people can play with an intricate rulebook, than with the fundamental aims of wikipedia. My remonstrations with you are extensive precisely because I hold your work and sense of unyielding principle on sticking points in high esteem. I know where you're coming from. In the real world, I never back down either (a similar stubbornness once cost me a lucrative alternative career!), and I am not asking you to. 
 ::Mate, sit out a month or two, keep helping anyone on your page with coordinates and any gen that ask for, and make a succinct, aesthetically persuasive (caps, no expostulations, clear syntax and precise words) note for a review of Jehochman's highy punitive (but in wiki terms, when working the rulebook over someone's 'crimsheet', completely coherent) sentence. Your record of infringement is, in terms of gravity, one of piddling oversights or trivial rashness, and in any sane world would, if put in the balance against the weight of your contributions to article creation and improvement, shoot upwards as featherweight peccadillos.  
 ::At this point, all I can do is leave it at that, and create another section which you may (or may not care to) use after 2 months have expired.    

 === June 1. The undersigned ask for a review of AK's sanction  === 
 ::A rapid decision, on a small point on wiki law, was made, regarding a trivial and contested act, in which he was accused of drive-by editing. He has without calling for administrative review sat out twice the length of one sanction imposed, that by Sandstein. Those who think the quality of his work invaluable for the I/P project ask that the year-long sanction be reviewed and scaled back drastically as wholly disproportionate to the contested infraction. The undersigned confirm their faith in his bona fides, and their belief that the infraction was and remains questionable. 
 *