| Revision as of 02:47, 30 October 2010 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →On the subject of sticks: re: may be this is not so bad... arbs know that you behaved well← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:55, 30 October 2010 edit undoHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →On the subject of sticks: more on thisNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ::I wish I had anything spirit-lifting and optimistic to say in response... it seems that for powers-that-be, the sufficient reward for good behavior is the lack of further punishment, and ] is a foreign concept. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) | ::I wish I had anything spirit-lifting and optimistic to say in response... it seems that for powers-that-be, the sufficient reward for good behavior is the lack of further punishment, and ] is a foreign concept. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::But maybe this is not so bad? Look at . Two drafting arbitrators of EEML case (those who actually issued the sanctions and know you best) believe that your topic ban can be amended. One recused. Others seems to be in a very bad mood (which is understandable), but they do not really object anything specific. And what could they tell about you? They know that you behaved very well and deserved the topic ban to be lifted. Or at least this is my understanding. ] (]) 02:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | :::But maybe this is not so bad? Look at . Two drafting arbitrators of EEML case (those who actually issued the sanctions and know you best) believe that your topic ban can be amended. One recused. Others seems to be in a very bad mood (which is understandable), but they do not really object anything specific. And what could they tell about you? They know that you behaved very well and deserved the topic ban to be lifted. Or at least this is my understanding. ] (]) 02:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::As about myself, I do not feel any urge to return back to the conflict area (it's so better not to be there!). On the other hand, I feel extremely uncomfortable knowing that someone is looking over my shoulder to report me on AE if I quote ] or ]. I also want to be again an editor in a good standing and have the same rights as every newbie (being ] is really bad). ''That'' could a reason for me to appeal.] (]) 03:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:55, 30 October 2010
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
On the subject of sticks
I quite agree. See here. Thank you for your comment, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am looking at your request as a benchmark case. What do they expect from editors topic-banned in RB, CC and other cases? You was very productive, edited boring stuff, was not involved in any controversy, and you understand the problems and related policies (as very much clear from your comments). If Arbcom will not support you, what me and others can expect? And I am sure that people are watching. Arbitrators probably suspect that you are not sincere. But that can be said about everyone else. Besides, what difference does it make if someone follows the rules because he is now a different person or because he does not want to be a subject of sanctions? Biophys (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wish I had anything spirit-lifting and optimistic to say in response... it seems that for powers-that-be, the sufficient reward for good behavior is the lack of further punishment, and positive reinforcement is a foreign concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- But maybe this is not so bad? Look at Arbitrator's opinions. Two drafting arbitrators of EEML case (those who actually issued the sanctions and know you best) believe that your topic ban can be amended. One recused. Others seems to be in a very bad mood (which is understandable), but they do not really object anything specific. And what could they tell about you? They know that you behaved very well and deserved the topic ban to be lifted. Or at least this is my understanding. Biophys (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- As about myself, I do not feel any urge to return back to the conflict area (it's so better not to be there!). On the other hand, I feel extremely uncomfortable knowing that someone is looking over my shoulder to report me on AE if I quote Landau or Pyotr Chaadaev. I also want to be again an editor in a good standing and have the same rights as every newbie (being lishenets is really bad). That could a reason for me to appeal.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- But maybe this is not so bad? Look at Arbitrator's opinions. Two drafting arbitrators of EEML case (those who actually issued the sanctions and know you best) believe that your topic ban can be amended. One recused. Others seems to be in a very bad mood (which is understandable), but they do not really object anything specific. And what could they tell about you? They know that you behaved very well and deserved the topic ban to be lifted. Or at least this is my understanding. Biophys (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wish I had anything spirit-lifting and optimistic to say in response... it seems that for powers-that-be, the sufficient reward for good behavior is the lack of further punishment, and positive reinforcement is a foreign concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)