User talk:Basil

Two points

1. "Travesty" — Seriously, did you see what got him banned? Would you like me to restore it so you can take a look? Ultimately he was his own worst enemy; if it wasn't for the arbitration ruling he asked for we would've been able to ban Scinfaxi and Rueful for their constant bad faith edits. Instead? He slipped up on the rulings and got himself banned.
2. "Why are they trying to tell us to vote against this if we want Amazing unbanned?" — Perhaps because if you used commonsense you'd know Amazing will be targeted by the plethora of trolls that are voting "unban" purely so they can cause more drama when he returns. Rasher, Scinfaxi, Mpaturet… do you honestly believe they aren't going to goad him? Do you honestly believe that Amazing is not going to be his hot-headed self and react? He'll get pissed, trip over himself before a "clear his record" policy passes and get banned, yet again. That would be fucking sadistic, yet that is what you propose. (Don't say it won't happen, if he could control himself he wouldn't have made that delightful edit and gotten banned in the first place.) I am trying to avoid the inevitabe fallout over what will pretty much be a mandated ban — even if that hypothetical "clear his record" policy passes to let him back on after a third occurance.

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:40, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Your joking right? I've heard it all from both sides of this thing but you know what? I went and read the arbitration decision myself. Amazing never violated it. The other guys did! Discussion pages were not supposed to hold talk of the other person, but userpages were not part of it. Did you read the arbitration rulings? It's a travesty because of this and nothing else you say matters. I'm sorry to be a prick right away. I was hoping to avoid this. But seeing you guys lie about the arbitration ruling over and over again is soooooo weird. Read it and you'll see that Amazing didn't violate it so that makes this whole thing moot. He should have been unbanned right away and clear misconduct should have been punished! But no you pretend he violated an arbitration agreement that clearly says he was in the right and the other guys should have been warned or banned. pathetic. Now you have the nerve to tell other people how to vote on that policy. if this were a election or something you'd be arrested for that kind of attempt of vote steering. -- Basil 20:15, 23 October 2006 (BST)

Maybe you missed this part, from Amazing vs Rasher? I quote: "Templates, or Pages (Other than personal talk pages)created by either party that exists (or may be perceived by a mod) as existing exclusivly to antagonize the other party shall not be created by either party". Amazing's little sextape offer was in clear violation of that. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 21:01, 23 October 2006 (BST)

And I quote many times from myself that it doesn't apply. Amazing's user page exsisted long before the Rasher WIKIGATE mess and wasn't created EXCLUSIVELY to antagonize the other party. It was a small edit/section on a page. The arb ruling states ' templates and pages created by either party that exsists EXCLUSIVELY to antagonize.' It was NOT made exclusively to antagonize Rasher, but simply a pre-exsisting, operating user page. The wording in the ruling is very specific. --Zod Rhombus 23:12, 23 October 2006 (BST)

Try splitting those hairs a little finer. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 23:47, 23 October 2006 (BST)

I didn't write the rules, dumbass. --Zod Rhombus 05:48, 25 October 2006 (BST)

As I said before Zod, if you want to twist rules as far as Amazing did you had better expect to have them twisted in turn. Here are three interpretations I came up with off the top of my head:

1. It can be easily argued that Amazing's user page's mere existence antagonised Scinfaxi & Co.
2. The page as it was, was purely to antagonise Scinfaxi & Co, ∴ it was existing purely to antagonise Scinfaxi.
3. If Amazing (as he'd have us believe) was a pillar of this community then his user page is obviosusly a communal page, ∴ the "do not comment on community pages" clause of the rulings comes into play.

Seriously, I'm just getting started. Give me a half hour and I'm sure I could come up with a few more creative interpretations of the rules; just like Amazing did. Of course, all that was needed was how it is up to the arbitrator as to what they intended. The arbitrator said they didn't intend for it to cover shit like that, so Amazing got banned. Tough. Luck. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:38, 25 October 2006 (BST)

I read the ruling and you're WRONG. Stop playing pretend. I swear you make up bullshit as you go along. A user page is community property? surely you are a better pillar of the community than Amazing by your definition, right? Then I can edit your user page because it is a communal page. wait no I can't. You're totally false. Basil 20:37, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Of course I was being disingenuous, you twit… and making up bullshit as I went along? Hello Basil, try reading sometime. Like what's now highlighted in pink. I was simply rubbing in the fact: even if there wasn't a legitimate way to say "arbitration violation" (as I already said, there was; see what's now highlighted in yellow) we could have pulled an Amazing and creatively interpreted it instead. As for the "pillar of the community" thing, is a sarcastic jab at your god's expense that hard to recognise? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:51, 27 October 2006 (BST)

It's not smart to insult your community members the second you disagree with them. Grow up, or at least get on some good medication for your severe attitude problems. I am correct. There was no reason to ban this guy in accordance with the rules. Nothing you ever say will change that. EVER. Now fuck off before I do some damage to you that leaves you stinging and sniveling. You're bending the truth to suit yourself. Good luck doing that in the real world. Oh wait no one would ever accept you out there. Okay, good luck living on a Wiki you parasite. Your highlighted bullshit is just that. Bullshit. Yes, I read. Maybe you should stop trying to alter history. -- Basil 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one who tried to alter history was Amazing with his retroactive convenience. There was plenty of reason to ban him in accordance with the rules; it just took something of that magnitude for someone to finally grow a pair and do something about your vaunted TrollMaster™. An inconvenient truth that'll never accept but truth nonetheless — nothing you say or do will change that. EVER. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hacking

I'm not going to vote on your suggestion because I feel it is incomplete like pinpoint said. I think if you pulled the suggestion, looked at some of the skills that have been implemented or at least gone to peer review, see what you might be missing and then resubmit. There have been a few other suggestions that have been similar in anture so make sure that yours is different enough to not be seen as a dupe (you might even site them when pointing out the differnces to get added legitimacy.) Even though Kevin is the only one who could determine what and where re: what would be in the "files" you might still want to include some "possibilities" for example purposes. Good Luck Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 21:41, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Don't worry I'm done with this bullshit. I don't need to put effort into a site run by people like Xoid. I'll just come here for info and maybe to arbitrate or post vandal reports. Other than that you can kiss my fat ass goodbye. -- Basil 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)