User talk:NSWelshman/Archives/1

Archived 05/04/2006...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#My_side_of_this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#My_side_of_this

Thanks for your contributions. I'll be refactoring the section you added quite a bit. If you see that I've changed the intent of anything say so. brenneman {L}  23:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and use only this account to post to my talk, please. - brenneman  {L}  00:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward
I think we're about done with my talk page. I'll only comment on your half, and leave SG's actions for elsewhere, ok?

You've managed to push the envelope in several directions at once!

In looking over everything on my talk, I see how you'd be frustrated. You knew that the J is me block was bogus because it was your tag that hed been applied, but for obvious reasons didn't want to say that. The selective rollback did look odd, and there is enough noise in the voting patterns that I might be able to see how you thought it was "looking after mates."

Do you think that, following this, you'll be able to work and play well with others? Because you've managed to make a couple of right big messes up to now. I see that you're cranky over the name change, and understand if that makes you over-twitchy with regards to suspected bad admin behavior. You clearly need more practice at presenting the evidence, though. You almost will not find someone as patient as I and it took me a while to see anything from your side.

I suggest article space edits. Lots of them. In areas that you perhaps aren't so passionate about. Work on civility, and presenting dispassionate arguments backed up with. Find someone who's experienced that you think seems fair and cosy up to them. If something comes up, ask them how to handle it. And no more sockpuppets, tag and bag them. Make this your account and stick with it.

brenneman {L}  13:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And to set up an e-mail account would allow people to communicate with you more discreetly. - brenneman  {L}  13:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort I appreciate it. And appologies for creating work for you. I will tag my sockpuppet as such and will stear clear of football articles from now on. Spose I could get an email to. I also intend to appologise to Snottygobble. NSWelshman 13:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In refactoring the talk I came across the statement that you still believe that SNg is part of an AFL "fraternity." Could you clarify for me three things: Do you still believe this? If so does this also mean that you believe SNg behaved inappropiately? If so2 do you want to pursue it?  I'm an equal opportunity employer. -  brenneman  {L}  23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I believe snottygobble has probably crossed paths with grant65 in the past due to their similar interests and location and that no explanation of conspiracy is requird to explain their affiliation.
 * Yes. I do think that snotty could have handled the situation a lot better. Accusing me of being J is Me when I clearly wasn't isn't really any better than what I did.  Talking to me would have resolved this very quickly and I would have apologised.  When I asked a simple question on his talk page he deleted it and referred to it as vandalism.  That sort of behaviour creates trolls in my opinion.
 * No. I'm not a revenge monger. I'd be a hipocrite to take this further.  He's already made two attempts to take me down.  He will just keep trying until he gets revenge.  I'm not going to lower myself to that level and I couldn't really care less if I get a temporary ban anyway. NSWelshman 14:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Allegations
''Snottygobble,

''As it appears that the basis for my allegations was incorrect I appologise for making the allegations. Anyone who works in my field should be well aware that circumstantial evidence is only grounds for an investigation, not for an allegation. I should have investigated the matter further before making an allegation. I also should have investigated wikipedia policy further to find a more appropriate place to make the allegation than in the talk pages of articles. NSWelshman 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)''
 * That you have apologised is appreciated, but I am not yet ready to accept it. My reason for this is that as JebusChrist you attacked SecretLondon, calling him a hypocrite and vandalising his user page, and it turned out the basis for your allegations against him was incorrect. You apologised and SecretLondon accepted your apology. Now the cycle seems to have repeated itself, and I just can't shake the suspicion that it will do so again.
 * As Aaron seems to have much higher hopes for your future conduct than I do, I will retract my request for a permanent block. I will continue to press for a block, however, because in my view the use of sockpuppets and vandalism to achieve an end is absolutely indefensible and demands a firm response.
 * Snottygobble 00:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye, a firm response, but we don't do punishment blocks, only preventative ones.
 * Most of the "rules" here are social feedback anyway, and I think a public offering of an apology is a bit like having tomatoes thrown at you, or the scarlet letter.
 * NSWelshman will have to be on better than average behavior, because SPUI-like he'll have used up "community patience." That's actually quite a restrictive punishment.
 * brenneman {L}  00:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Snottygobble, you are entitled to your opinion. You can pursue this as much as you like.  I have no intention of putting up any form of a defence.  I'm sure someone will let me know the result. NSWelshman 14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)