Defending Rob
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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