Defending Rob

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Defending Rob

So let me get this straight...Rob accuses me of rigging the mod votes and being several different socks (both here, Ameriwiki and via vicious personal emails) so I play a prank on him via a very innocuous edit which he'll now doubt revert himself and people feel the need to "defend him"? RW is not allowed to be fun?

Aceace07:00, 30 September 2011

You're acting like a caricature of yourself. Get real. Repeated bad-faith edits of other people's userpages, regardless of how much you don't like the user, are not on. This is not a new thing. We've both been here for three and a half years, you should know.

Blue (pester)07:10, 30 September 2011

Man, RW has fallen on hard times. Is this the new "culture" Brxbrx was mentioning?

Aceace07:13, 30 September 2011

How very RobSmithian of you to completely ignore my comment. Maybe you are his sock.

Blue (pester)07:17, 30 September 2011

Who is ignoring your comment? Dude, you completely ignored mine.

Aceace07:17, 30 September 2011

This whole tempest in a teapot is ridiculous, quite frankly. I'm actually bewildered by your reactions to getting reverted. Why do you insist Rob revert it? It's never been the case that a page owner is the only one who can revert bad-faith edits. As I recall it was quite a new development to allow userpage wandalism in any form (and I was the first to do it, way back when, and several times people reverted even the requested vandalism out of habit).

Blue (pester)07:46, 30 September 2011

Nevermind. You humourless fuck.

Aceace07:50, 30 September 2011

Eh. I've been called much worse.

Blue (pester)07:56, 30 September 2011

My intention wasn't to insult.

Aceace08:01, 30 September 2011
 
 
 
 
 

New????

-- Nx / talk07:30, 30 September 2011

I was just about to go looking for that.

Blue (pester)07:31, 30 September 2011
 

There are malicious edits and then there are ones out of humour. I believe my edit of Robs page was in the latter category considering his repeated accusations of sock puppetry.

Aceace07:32, 30 September 2011

Yeah, but when you do it repeatedly and it turns into an edit war with people abusing their sysop rights to lock the page (with the vandalism intact) and block an editor who is undoing the vandalism, it's no longer very humeurous.

-- Nx / talk07:34, 30 September 2011

Then why would anyone revert it anyway and a) not let Rob do it (considering it wasn't malicious, rude or insulting) and b) ignore my explanation? Are we to be completely hamstringed by rules? When did RW's humour nuts get chopped off? Note I added the same edit to Milakos page (whom Rob accused me of being) and Dick added it to mine

Aceace07:37, 30 September 2011

No, I don't want to be hamstrung by your bullshit. I'm not going to argue with you over whether the edit was malicious or in bad faith or whether your explanation justifies your edits or whatever. You broke the rules. End of story.

-- Nx / talk07:51, 30 September 2011

Nevermind. You humourless fuck.

Aceace07:52, 30 September 2011

Abuse of sysop rights! Hamstrung by your bullshit! Robble robble!

Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg14:22, 30 September 2011