Category talk:Arbitration Cases

1. To do
   1. Chronologically sort all arbitration cases before November/2006
   2. Complete the templates in the cases from the first archive
   3. Write a summary for all cases that still don't have one
   4. Check if all cases are in Category:Arbitration Cases
   5. Check if all cases were created using the right pattern for URL
2. Pattern URL
   1. The pattern is "{username|group|various} [and {username|group} [and ...]] vs {username|group|various} [and {username|group} [and ...]] [(n)]"
   2. The names in the left side are those who created and/or support the case
   3. Alternative nicks should be changed to the username
   4. no points after "vs"
   5. "vs" should be written in all-lowercase
   6. The only exception to this pattern is wikigate, as it's a special case.
3. Filling the template
   1. keep all data as clean as possible
   2. Use the {{usr}} template to identify users
   3. do not add signature templates and/or signature addons (like talk and group links)
   4. if it's hard to find when a case was created/dismissed/ruled, use the first/last data available

Any volunteers for any of these tasks ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The below 'guidelines' are nothing but petty points scoring and drama whoring by Hagnat, users have always been known by their chosen handle at the time of a case within the archive, this is nothing more than Hagnat making shit up again trying to provoke other users.

Also, there should be a period after "vs", it's an abbreviation, basic fucking English! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I point the community to Cheese's recent reversions, apparently using talk pages to avoid drama is not within the remit of our current sysops and they'd rather engage in edit wars, trusted users.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuck off, I'm busy changing links. I don't need you screwing it up and making me go back over it. -- Cheese 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone see? We're told to use talk pages and this is how we're responded to by our trusted users. For everyone's reference, the bits I altered have nothing to do with the links, only the displayed text. Cheese has no basis in his statement. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You should note that this edit was made in January from last year, when *I* CREATED THIS WHOLE FRICKING SYSTEM. And cheese removal of your above comments is mainly because this is AN ARCHIVE PAGE DISCUSSION. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know vs. is abbreviation, but this is a link we are talking about... and a dot in the URL is awfully bad for some browsers --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please note how Hagnat removes my edit because it suits him, reorganises my comments to try and give his precedent (and thus making my direction in the opening comment nonsensical). See also that he believes he has ownership over these community archives and does not even alter the text when a basic English error is demonstrated to him. Trusted users.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And as we see, Hagnat does not restore an edit he disagrees with and removes without cause, inconvenience - overriding community trust since he was last elected. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. It has been noted. -- Cheese 01:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See how this second trusted user does not restore the comment either. Although apparent to anyone who can (though shouldn't have to) go through the history, it will be lost during the next history purge. Odd how they are happy for things they disagree with to disappear in this fashion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy? Now stop whining and go play elsewhere. -- Cheese 01:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And behold, all it took was three messages and interaction with two trusted users in order to have something restored that Hagnat should have done himself immediately rather than assume his edit was 'more worthy' and clicked save even though the wiki told him there was an edit conflict. If you the community had done it to any of their comments though, how long before there would have been a 'soft warning' at the very least do you think? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise addressing everything you write to the entire wiki does make you look like a bit of a prick? Kinda like an idiot in a shopping centre with a megaphone telling everyone about their brilliant idea. -- Cheese 01:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No attempt to engage or address any point, just an ad hominem attack. Trusted users.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No attempt to engage or address any point, just an ad hominem attack about trusted users. -- Cheese 01:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I can type trusted users too! I think I should end every sentence with that from now on, no matter what we're talking about!--SirArgo ^Talk 01:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. Now shut the fuck up and make me something to eat. I'm hungry.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 02:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost cases?

There are some cases I remember happening that aren't listed here I think? Poodle of Doom had a few against me here I can't seem to find. I was specifically looking for the latest one where Yon arbitrated? A ZOMBIE ANT 08:40, 9 September 2012 (BST)