UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Cornholioo

User:Iscariot versus User:Cornholioo

The Battle of Krinks is over. And like the Imperium before them, the NSU insist on trying to alter the result to paint themselves in a better light, diminish the impact others had and for very straightforward propaganda purposes.

As per the example of this case I seek to have the result and subsequent alterations to the article judged and assessed by a neutral third party.

I shall accept any of the following as arbitrator:

• User:Rosslessness
• User:Aichon
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Revenant
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Amber Waves of Pain
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Misanthropy
• User:Rosslessness

Hugs and kisses. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst a member of the Knights, my Knight character did not participate in this outing, as I was already in the area with a neutral alt, from uninvolved group Burning chiton. As such, I am not stepping down as a potential arbitrator, and can point Cornholioo towards incidents of past acrimony between Iscariot and myself as proof of my impartiality. 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

'past acrimony', I assume you me calling you on your attempts to meat puppet to gain a limited category as a propaganda bonus for your other group? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to offer to be the neutral third part that will judge and assess the edits to the article. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You attempted to ally with the Order to wipe out the other two factions, your ability to be impartial could be questioned, so I don't think you could arbitrate this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer to arbitrate, if only to get shot down by Iscariot.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. --Cornholioo 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can take this as my shoot down ;) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to write down what is not correct about the page as it is right now. 1. the Coalition and the NSU have agreed the Battle of Krinks has ended on 21 March 2010. The PK do not recognize this, but keep editing the page to 22 March 2010. I would like to see this edited to 21 March 2010. 2. The NSU did not withdrew from the fight, but left after the fight was over to avoid a second one. I would like to see this edited. 3. Martino has posted this: "I revived Burning the Fire and killed a PKer inside the power station, but things do not look good. --Martino 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)" on the talk page of the Battle of Krinks (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Battle_of_Krinks). The PK keep denying to have lost a man. I would like to see the death count of the PK edited to 'dubious' untill further notice. 4. I have corrected this mistake: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Battle_of_Krinks&diff=1679649&oldid=1679646 of Iscariot, which the Iscariot keeps editing back. This has nothing to do with the thing he reported me for, so I would like to see this edited. 5. The PK claim to have made an NPOV article. However, this: "On March 22 the Philosophe Knights declared complete victory and completion of their aims after the previous day's withdrawal of the NSU, the complete removal of non-Knights from Krinks and the pinata-ing of the entire building. Less than a week after entering the conflict, the Knights considered that they had made their lesson abundantly clear and that there was nothing further to accomplish.

With the NSU abandoning the area and the Philosophe Knights indicating that they would leave the area after having taught their lesson to both participants meant that Krinks would be left in the hands of the WWSIS and that the Battle of Krinks would come to a close.", is not NPOV. 6. The NSU doesn't agree on the results of this battle. The PK claim victory, but this is only subjective. The NSU can claim victory for several reasons as well. I would prefer to place only facts here. The only this that have changed, are: a. Krinks got partially ruined. b. The coalition got driven off krinks (most likely temporary). c. The PK have entered krinks (most likely temporary). 7. This is not completely right: "demanding a mutual cessation of conflict and offering future cooperation in protecting Malton's Power Stations." We have demanded a mutual cessation of conflict and offered to add to our wiki page that other survivor groups help us in achieving our goals. Also see this page: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:National_Socialist_Union.

A lot of this is POV or simply wrong. Still Iscariot keeps editing them back. The page has been locked now, so truth can't be spoken. --Cornholioo 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth? From a Nazi? Who treated a mainspace page like his own personal page? Yeah, right. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. "You're a nazi so you can't say the truth", useless argument. In other words: "everything you say is wrong". That makes no sense. And like I've already explained, I didnt threat the article as my personal page. I've reproduced facts and facts only in the article. What you are doing right now is writing a POV article, you are the treating the article as your personal page. You've even refused to accept a neutral person to rewrite the article. Still you dare to call it NPOV and you even dare to insult me of treating 'a mainspace page like' my 'own personal page'. Now you're inviting a bunch of your PK friends to arbitrate this case. SHAME ON YOU. Though, I have already reacted on this, but you just keep repeating the same argument untill I get tired of it. When I then don't react on it anymore, you have won the debate. The Jew keeps repeating the same argument all the time. When the Aryan gets tired of it the Jew says his question hasn't been answered. If the Philosophe Knights are really so intelligent as they say, then start acting like it. --Cornholioo 8:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to contribute to this discussion or not, but.. Well, I must say - The comment above (Specifically, the hate speech-sounding one) is low, very low. It has no meaning in this debate, is an direct insult to involved parties, would probably be illegal if uttered where I live and is largely fictional. Sorry for the intrusion. I apologize if I have broken a rule or two. Infrastructure 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just explaining a problem. --Cornholioo 9:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'm flattered that Iscariot would name me as an arbitrator, I'm afraid I have a potential conflict of interest since I was an involved party (I participated in killing those inside Krinks with my Knight alt). While I do believe I could remain objective and impartial in a ruling on this subject, this matter can be easily resolved by other arbitrators, so I see no reason why I shouldn't recuse myself and save myself the hassle of dealing with accusations of partiality should the ruling not go the way people want. So, yeah, I'm recusing myself. Cheers. —Aichon— 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know jack about any of this, so I'd make a perfectly impartial party! I've no ties against or for either party that would influence me unfairly in arbitrating this case. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL-Bias. Accept Yonnua. Lets see how he's developing as a member of the community. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you do it :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Chucking my hat in the ring. I watch the PK talk page and read the battle of the krinks page once, but that's my entire involvement. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a concrete history of vandalising Philosophe Knight pages, can you guess what my response is going to be? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'd forgotten about that! Oh dear. If it's any consolation, I've got a concrete history of vandalising the Red Rum page, despite being the group leader at the time. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. -- Cheese 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept. --User:Cornholioo 14:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If its not too late I'd like to be the Arbitatortot. I have a lot of experience with Arby's as I've been here many times. Their $5.01 deal is quite good and their Roast Spambeef sandwiches are delicious with Arby's Sauce. If you pick me I promise I will go extra hard on the person that I choose to lose. So if you want your opponent to get a weak slap on the wrist then pick one of the faggots above. They'll be too busy sucking major cock to properly lay the smack down. I, on the other hand, will go over the evidence and from that alone decide who lives and who dies. The decision will be fair, the punishment will not. So if you want top vanquish your enemy then choose me. Also, if you do not choose me you are admitting that you are also a faggot and give me permission to say so on my userpage. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept. --Cornholioo 14:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Aight, you're a faggot and I'm saying so on my userpage. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 00:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate the arbitrators that I will accept in hopes my opponent will actually get this case going rather than whine all over the wiki about it rather than doing something to get the page finished. I will accept:

• Ross
• Revenant
• Less
• Misanthropy
• Ness
• Amber Waves of Pain
• Rosslessness

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

please? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 07:10, 28 March 2010 (BST)

He's already said no. You can't have a 'trator that isn't approved by both parties. Sowwy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:48, 28 March 2010 (BST)

• Ross Denied
• Revenant Denied
• Less Denied
• Misanthropy Denied
• Ness Denied
• Amber Waves of Pain Denied
• Rosslessness Denied

Already explained why. White regards, --Cornholioo 15:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't explained in the slightest, but I have no desire to give you another tangent to go off on to delay this case further. Pick a list of arbitrators you would prefer then. Given you keep saying that page is false it is in your interest to get this case resolved as quickly as possible so the information on it can be changed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:13, 29 March 2010 (BST)

I'll stick to accepting/denying ones that apply. --Cornholioo 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So far that's User:Krazy Monkey, anyone else you've accepted I missed? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:29, 30 March 2010 (BST)

Cheese has had a recent history of severe and random absence from wiki activity. In order to get this case resolved quickly I'm unwilling to take the chance and will decline Cheese. My opponent is still complaining about the page being wrong in his opinion but makes not attempt to call new arbitrators to speed up this case I see. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:29, 30 March 2010 (BST)

I've already explained, but seen as your intelligence requires it I tell you one more time: they are your PKer friends. There are also some which I've had arguments with before, so I don't accept them. I've also accepted Yonnua, but you've denied him too. DanceDanceRevolution maybe? --Cornholioo 7:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rosslessness is a PKer? News to me. And Misanthropy is many things, but my friend he is not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:39, 31 March 2010 (BST)

I will try this one very last time: READ CAREFULLY: "There are also some which I've had arguments with before". --Cornholioo 20:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have killed 10 survivors across 3 cities in 3 years. Here's 9 of them. Frankly I feel its massively AP inefficient. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:37, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Speaking of which, let's get one of those beasts up and running again. I need my throne back!!! --

 

 

 

 

17:39, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Im running a story competition, trying to create an entirely fictional city, flagging up coding errors with the New RG and reorganising the glossary. And you're being less active. Too much effort this week. Plus I may abandon UD altogether if there's no FUCKING APRIL FOOLS UPDATE. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:42, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Although doing the case would be interesting, Iscariot wouldn't accept me, not that I blame him with the track record he and I have had together. --

 

 

 

 

08:44, 31 March 2010 (BST)

DDR is right, unfortunately there is a lot of bad blood between us and I don't think either of us would choose the other for a case. How about Suicidal Angel? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:39, 31 March 2010 (BST)

For the record I am about, my absence is only down to a combination of Uni work and work work. However I'm on holiday for the next 3 weeks from Uni so I have a stupidly large amount of free time. -- Cheese 18:36, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Will you accept now Iscariot? --Cornholioo 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

May I arbi for you two?--Dragon fang 08:37, 1 April 2010 (BST)

k, I'll accept Rosslessness. Lets see what will happen now. --Cornholioo 2:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Excitement. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:38, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Confirming acceptance of Rosslessness. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:11, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Opening Note

This is not a free for all. You each will have ample room for reply, and I will extend the process if I feel it is necessary. Only comment in areas under your own name. If you comment directly in your opponents sections, don't be surprised if I remove your comments to the talk page.

Iscariot's Opening Statement

This case was brought after repeated attempts by multiple users on this wiki to bring the Battle of Krinks page into a NPOV state. I stand by my original reasoning, I seek:

• for a neutral third party, the arbitrator, to assess the article and establish its NPOV state.
• for it to be established that Cornholioo's conduct was not in the interests of achieving a NPOV page and that his behaviour was disruptive to the process of improving the main space of this wiki.
• for Cornholioo's editing privileges to the page to be revoked permanently, as the event is historical once the work is done to establish a suitable content for the page in this case there will be no further reason for him to edit it again.

I will leave point by point comparisons of behaviour and facts for later in this case in the interests of getting the case under way. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:35, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Cornholioo's Opening Statement

Stuff on the page is either wrong or POV. I'd like the page to be rewritten by a neutral person. --Cornholioo 19:54, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Rosslessness' Middle Bit

After initial statements I will take time to read the comments and ask any questions I feel are relevant. Do not proceed beyond this point until asked specifically.

Well, that was easy. It does appear that both parties want a neutral version of the page constructed.

As such I'd like each user to submit what they feel is a balanced view of the conflict.

Corn can create his at User:Cornholioo/krinks_draft and I'm sure Iscariot already has one prepared.

Iscariot's Draft

An adapted version of this draft is my choice for the page. After the conflict ended I was forced to completely rewrite the page in order to drag it towards some measure of NPOV and basic quality in page construction and basic SPG. Unlike Cornholioo, I have attempted to engage with other participants in the event in order to build a consensus on a NPOV page recording the event. I believe the protection due to Cornholioo's edit warring of the page has stalled the discussion and progress in this regard, but hopefully we'll be able to move forward and get a representative page that is NPOV and truthful. Cornholioo's edits have been consistently biased towards his own organisation and lacking in any basic proof or logic. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:44, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Corn's Draft

As I've said the artice written by Iscariot is partially POV and partially wrong. Must stuff in it is right, but there are some mistakes. I have edited those mistakes but Iscariot has edited them back. He has also reported me to arbitration. The most important stuff is summed up here:

1. Wrong are the deaths at the Philosophe Knights. As the leader of the NSU I can say we killed no one. The coalition claims to have killed 'at least two' members of the PKs. There are no screenshots for this, but there are neither of any kill/wounded the NSU has received. If unsolveable we should call the number of deaths "dubious".

2. Wrong is the result of the battle. Every side has a reason to claim victory. Thus I'd like to limit this to territorial changes: the coalition has temporary left the Krinks. If unsolveable we should call the result "dubious".

3. Wrong is the end date of the battle. The coalition and the NSU have agreed to 21 March 2010. Iscariot changed it to 22 March 2010. The NSU think has to do with that the relocation of the NSU - which we have done to avoid a second battle - could be seen as a retreat/withdrawal. We have relocated ourselves after the battle was over. We have not retreated/withdrawn.

4. Wrong is the title of the page. Now that there's a Second Battle of Krinks, I'd like to see this page renamed to "First Battle of Krinks" rather than "Battle of Krinks".

5. POV is most in this part: "On March 22 the Philosophe Knights declared complete victory and completion of their aims after the previous day's withdrawal of the NSU, the complete removal of non-Knights from Krinks and the pinata-ing of the entire building. Less than a week after entering the conflict, the Knights considered that they had made their lesson abundantly clear and that there was nothing further to accomplish.

With the NSU abandoning the area and the Philosophe Knights indicating that they would leave the area after having taught their lesson to both participants meant that Krinks would be left in the hands of the WWSIS and that the Battle of Krinks would come to a close." I'd like to see that changed. See also my second point.

6. Wrong is this part "The NSU branded this diplomacy and alliance building as "cowardly" due to the fact that WWSIS had made the original declaration of war.", I have edited this to: "LURCS radio station has also made broadcasts in which they called the NSU 'PKs' and 'Murderers'. The NSU called this as "a cowardly way by LURCS to win the sympathy of feral survivors" due to the fact that the groups were at war, and the WWSIS had made the original declaration of war". That are two entire differend things.

So once again: this is the most important stuff is summed up here. This is the reason why I think this page is wrong and POV. I think this page should be rewritten by a neutral person. I would also agree if Iscariot rewrote it himself, showed it to me, and then edited it himself. --Cornholioo 15:52, 15 April 2010 (BST)

Rosslessness' Questions

Corn. I have some questions.

• In Iscariot's draft here it makes no mention of you killing any members of the Philosophe Knights. In addition to this It states quite clearly at the top right of the page the dates of the conflict were Februaryy 26th to March 21st. Surely that resolves those two issues?

• Surely the result of the battle is Entire Area Ruined, NSU leave Krinks ?

• Explain to me what you would like the section in point 5 to say, and how it is POV.

Iscariot, once Corn has replied to these questions, please feel free to dispute any of the above points.

Corn's Respnses to Questions

- I didn't kill any member of the PKs. The coalition however, did. Iscariot doesn't report any kills made by the coalition. Also on the current version of the Battle of Krinks, says this: Date: "February 26th - March 22nd, 2010"

- We never stationed ourselves in Krinks and have ever reason to call the battle our victory. We've severely harassed the coalition and played a key role in their drive off Krinks. I can see no 'reward' for this in the current results. The PK have only temporary driven the coalition off Krinks. So I'd like the result to be edited to "coalition temporary leaves Krinks"

- "On March 22 the Philosophe Knights claimed complete victory and completion of their aims. They also said to do this after the previous day's "withdrawal" of the NSU, the complete removal of non-Knights from Krinks and the pinata-ing of the entire building.

The NSU and the coalition don't agree with the PKs; they claim March 21 to be the end date of the battle. The NSU calls this "relocation", since the battle was over, rather than "withdrawal". Also the NSU have said to praise it's key role in the withdrawal of the leftists of Krinks.

Less than a week after entering the conflict, The Philosophe Knights have said that for them there was nothing more to accomplish.

With the NSU leaving the area "to avoid a second battle of krinks" and the Philosophe Knights indicating that they would leave the area as well "after having taught their lesson to both participants" meant that Krinks would be left in the hands of the coalition and that the Battle of Krinks would come to a close." This is a little less PK-centered.

Iscariot's Response to Questions

Right I shall do this in sections:

On Cornholioo's draft...

"He has also reported me to arbitration."

Really? Thank you Captain Obvious.

"The coalition claims to have killed 'at least two' members of the PKs. There are no screenshots for this, but there are neither of any kill/wounded the NSU has received."

Claims are great but they aren't proof. Creationists claim that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time and that carnivores actually ate plants in the Garden of Eden, claims are just shit that's made up. I have screenshots of Cornholioo being killed as well as shots of members of the coalition being killed. I can prove what I say. I'd be happy for the casualty section to be based solely on evidence. Until then no-one has proved that any member of the Philosophe Knights was killed by an opponent involved in this war.

"Wrong is the result of the battle."

How? It's accepted that we killed everyone in it, ruined it multiple times and made it into a pinata. We left of our own accord having completed all our objectives. Therefore we won. The fact we did it so completely and in such a short span of time makes it very impressive and a major victory for us.

"Every side has a reason to claim victory."

Really? I enter this page difference. Let us notice the goals of the NSU on the 23rd, the day after the end of the battle. They read "Keeping Krinks and Tolman Power Station safe". It is accepted that we ruined and turned the place into a pinata. You failed at your basic group goals. I'm sure the coalition would also admit that they failed to protect the power station but their stated goal was to remove you from Krinks. You were no longer there, minor victory for them on grounds they'd achieved their strategic aims but lost the power station to us.

"Thus I'd like to limit this to territorial changes: the coalition has temporary left the Krinks."

Patently untrue. Cornholioo has said he withdrew on the 21st, how can he know the disposition of a group after he's left? For the record the coalition was still in the area, next door in some cases, and repairing throughout the 21st and 22nd. They were quite cordial in game to us by that time and had certainly not been driven off of Krinks.

"If unsolveable we should call the result "dubious"."

How is this unsolvable? You failed. The coalition succeeded but allowed the power station to be repeatedly ruined. We completed all our objectives with alacrity and style.

"Wrong is the end date of the battle."

Yes, let's have the losers of conflicts get to decide when it ends. Accordingly the Second World War will now end in 1941 with a major victory for the Third Reich. That is simply retarded. We were a part of the conflict, we were still shooting people and ruining buildings on the 22nd as part of the conflict, the conflict was ongoing.

"The coalition and the NSU have agreed to 21 March 2010."

It's a open secret that Cornholioo is antagonistic to the coalition, so why is he allowed to speak for them? I move that Cornholioo's remarks be restricted to himself and his group for the duration of this arbitration and a member of the coalition be called if their opinions are required. I can suggest multiple members of the coalition that found Philosophe Knights still fighting in Krinks on the 22nd, I'm sure they'd agree that the battle wasn't over at that point.

"We have not retreated/withdrawn."

You were there, you then weren't. I don't know what dictionary you've been reading but that'd be a retreat/withdrawal.

"Wrong is the title of the page. Now that there's a Second Battle of Krinks, I'd like to see this page renamed to "First Battle of Krinks" rather than "Battle of Krinks"."

We don't alter history on this wiki. The Big Bash is not renamed The First Big Bash due to the existence of The Second Big Bash. Added to that is the fact that there will be no 'Second' Battle of Krinks in the main space for long due to the A/D case.

"POV is most in this part: "On March 22 the Philosophe Knights declared complete victory and completion of their aims after the previous day's withdrawal of the NSU, the complete removal of non-Knights from Krinks and the pinata-ing of the entire building. Less than a week after entering the conflict, the Knights considered that they had made their lesson abundantly clear and that there was nothing further to accomplish."

How so? We did declare victory on the 22nd, I know because it was my job to do this. We had completed our aims due to the fact no-one outside the Order was present in the power station and it was made into a pinata. We had been in the conflict less than a week. We did consider that we had made our lesson abundantly clear. We didn't think we had anything else to accomplish in the battle. None of this is POV, just because you don't like something doesn't make it POV or untruthful. That paragraph is factual, accurate and within the bounds of reporting events in a NPOV manner.

"With the NSU abandoning the area and the Philosophe Knights indicating that they would leave the area after having taught their lesson to both participants meant that Krinks would be left in the hands of the WWSIS and that the Battle of Krinks would come to a close." I'd like to see that changed. See also my second point."

Would you like the dictionary definition of abandoning? You'll find it applicable. Krinks was left in the hands of the coalition due to the fact that none of the other participants were present and claiming the location. We were present while the coalition was repairing and rebarricading Krinks, and some of the Order were even helping. The building was firmly in the care of the coalition.

On Cornholioo's Responses to Questions...

"I didn't kill any member of the PKs. The coalition however, did."

Prove it. Very simple. Bring me a date checkable screenshot that shows a member of the coalition killing a confirmed member of the Philosophe Knights. He can't. And the coalition aren't likely to help him out there either.

"Also on the current version of the Battle of Krinks, says this: Date: "February 26th - March 22nd, 2010" "

This is the correct set of dates as already evidenced.

"We never stationed ourselves in Krinks and have ever reason to call the battle our victory. We've severely harassed the coalition and played a key role in their drive off Krinks."

Your own goals state that you were keeping Krinks safe. If you were never there you can't claim this or being a part of the battle as it was fought at Krinks. You have no reason to claim any sort of victory or success. You ran away and caused nothing but a minor irritation to the coalition. I'd happily bring a member of the coalition into this case to answer the following questions:

"Was it the Philosophe Knights or the NSU that killed everyone in Krinks and ruined the building? If the Philosophe Knights had not joined the conflict, how likely was it (taking into account the AP differential between PKing and reviving) that the NSU would be able to kill every member of the coalition in Krinks?"

I already know that the answers aren't going to ascribe any sort of chance of victory to the NSU. The NSU had been fighting for weeks and made no discernible progress in the battle, one of the oldest, most feared and efficient PK groups in the game showed up and the battle was over in less than a week. The result and reasoning is clear to anyone with an iota of common sense. Cornholioo is trying to steal glory from the Order with no basis, and he cannot prove otherwise.

""On March 22 the Philosophe Knights claimed complete victory and completion of their aims. They also said to do this after the previous day's "withdrawal" of the NSU, the complete removal of non-Knights from Krinks and the pinata-ing of the entire building."

Cornholioo has no business saying anything about what the Philosophe Knights do and do not claim. On this wiki I generally speak for the Order, Cornholioo does not. I make the public statements on behalf of the Order here, he does not and has no business attempting to do so on this arbitration.

"The NSU and the coalition don't agree with the PKs; they claim March 21 to be the end date of the battle."

Saying what opposed groups do and do not think again? Can I have him restrained to his own group's opinions please?

"The NSU calls this "relocation""

Propaganda based semantics. Neutral common sense recognises this action as a retreat based on being beaten.

"since the battle was over"

Wasn't over. We were still busy killing people. War doesn't stop when one side runs away if another side is still fighting. We were still engaged in the battle so logic shows that it couldn't be over.

"Also the NSU have said to praise it's key role in the withdrawal of the leftists of Krinks."

The coalition did not withdraw. They were still there throughout the Philosophe Knights' slaughter of Krinks. The NSU played no recognisable role in this slaughter.

"This is a little less PK-centered."

The section as is in well within the bounds of NPOV, if you want I'll show you what real propaganda looks like by rewriting that to be pro-PK.

On Rosslessness' Questions...

"It states quite clearly at the top right of the page the dates of the conflict were Februaryy 26th to March 21st."

I must have clicked on the wrong diff, the battle ended on the 22nd.

"Surely the result of the battle is Entire Area Ruined, NSU leave Krinks ?"

Surely the result of WWII is Europe and East Asia damaged, Third Reich and Imperial Japan leave France and China? No, the result is a major victory to Soviet and Allied powers as they completely exerted their will on their opponents, damage is irrelevant, the victory is absolute. As per the case I referred to at the start of these proceedings, the end result is evident, calling it anything but is propaganda and incorrect.

Thus concludes my latest set of rebuttals. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:44, 17 April 2010 (BST)

Additional: Given new information the Battle of Krinks may not be over. The Philosophe Knights agree that while they might have ceased operations on or around the 22nd and 23rd, that other participants might not and we would potentially support their stance on this matter, rendering the Second Battle for Krinks a speedy deletion candidate. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:58, 18 April 2010 (BST)

Final Ruling

Right. With Iscariot's recent self removal from wiki affairs I've used the avaliable information to create a final version of the page based on your feedback. I doubt either of you will be happy with the final version, but hey, if you were going to have agreed, you would have done so by now.

In addition.

• The page in question will remain protected for a period of 6 Months.

Final Note.

• User spaces. If this page had been at User:Cornholioo/Battle of Krinks none of this would have happened. Remember this in the future.

Thanks, --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:16, 22 April 2010 (BST)