Defending Rob

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Blue
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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