UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Generaloberst vs Krazy Monkey

	OBJECTION!
	This user has an objection.

I object to Generaloberst making rebuttals at this time. There is a time for rebuttals, but that comes under a new section after everyone have made their statements. I demand his current statements be stricken from the record. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:45, 11 April 2012 (BST)

First, the new section didn't say so. Second, Krazy Monkey replied to me too in the goals section. But of course when he did it, it was ok, because you're biased. Or are you going to say 'Yeah but he did it under his own header so it's ok' now? User:Generaloberst/s 0:05, 12 April 2012 (BST)

I was actually going to move it over myself, but Mis beat me to it. Stop moaning. -- Cheese 00:17, 12 April 2012 (BST)

You're actually both at fault, especially Cheese as he's familiar with the process, but only one of you managed to get sand in their vagina over it. Another reason the celtic peoples will always be superior to you silly germanic types. 00:33, 12 April 2012 (BST)

Yes probably because he reports me and not Cheese dickhead?? And his GOAL section still replies on me, it says this: "My third point, relates to this:

Finally, I would like to see that Krazy Monkey will be restricted from posting on my talk page and editing pages that I make. Seen that he only is there to annoy me. I think none of us wants to see more A/A cases than this one." But I bet you're going to say that's no problem because it's under his own header. Then I'll say "it's still a rebuttal" and then it gets decided in his favor. And then some time later we start over again. User:Generaloberst/s 11:54, 12 April 2012 (BST)

Actually, it serves as evidence in favour of the point I am making in that section. I was halfway through writing about posting on talk pages when I noticed that you'd added that so I thought I would use it in my elaboration. -- Cheese 12:18, 12 April 2012 (BST)

Also, the main reason I left the discussion below in place so long was that it seemed to me as though you were slowly starting to come around to the idea of having the page moved to your group namespace and that we could settle this amicably. However, since it's been moved you appear to have got totally the wrong end of the stick and returned to your usual persecution complex (which considering your political ideology is amusingly ironic). -- Cheese 12:23, 12 April 2012 (BST)

You made a response, which is not allowed. End of story.

And no, I see no reason to move it to our namespace. You can say that I would have full control of it but it would be less trustable. I want a serious NPOV page as I said already. I came around on the defenition of tactical victory. I want credit for us having ruined all NTs and I admit that we didn't cause long term damage. Call it a tactical victory or call it something else. I want credit. End of story. User:Generaloberst/s 16:55, April 2012 (BST)

Yes, I'd welcome it if you would abstain from rebuttals for now. We will get there stage soon anyway. Next stage will be opened tonight after I've returned from work. -- Spiderzed█ 11:28, 12 April 2012 (BST)

butts

1. I don't know if I can reply here now or not, the top of this new section doesn't say it, but isn't that what a tactical victory means? If not then I appologize. I agree that it wouldn't have taken the survivors much time to recover, I just want recognition for the fact that we had achieved our goal (to have every NT ruined at the same time). User:Generaloberst/s 20:00, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   No, a tactical victory would be more along that lines of say two navies facing off, one losing a larger number of ships but fewer key ship could be said to have achieved a tactical victory despite technically losing. For your second point, if that is what you are wanting, the page doesn't really belong in the main namespace and should be in your group namespace as that would make it more of an operation page than an event page. The event page would take both sides POV into consideration. -- Cheese 20:07, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   Ok, I understand now. And no, the page says it's an operation. I don't see why those can't go in mainspace. We had met the operational goals (to have every NT ruined at the same time). User:Generaloberst/s 20:30, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   An operation page tends to be POV and only really be relevant to the group who ran it. Something like the Mall Tours or very large scale sieges like Forts or Caiger are what go in the Main namespace. If it's in your own namespace it's also much easier if two groups end up wanting to use the same name for their ops and record it on the wiki. -- Cheese 20:35, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   I still don't see how it has to be POV. Nazi Zombies started the operation and named certain operational goals. That is NPOV. This was pretty large scale too, nearly 400 people involved. User:Generaloberst/s 20:39, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   The whole point of the main namespace articles is that they are (mostly) written from a neutral point of view. If you look at the wiki as a really really good ideal newspaper, the main namespace is the news part: it reports the main stories and aims to keeps the commentary fair and unbiased. Group namespaces are like the columnist pages, this is where you get different people's point of views as to how things are going. I'd say from dealing with this wiki a long time, both as a user and as a sysop, the page as it was belongs in the latter. And from my experience of the South west suburbs I'd say that number would be closer to 150-200 people, perhaps less, which in the grand scheme of things isn't that much of an impact. -- Cheese 20:54, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   Lol there are over 5200 survivors standing right now, that is 52 per suburb on average. That includes suburbs that are red or ghost town which makes the average even higher for green suburbs. At the start of The Blitz all 6 were green except Spicer hills which was yellow if I remember correctly. Then there are also 2 malls in the area. I think the malls and surrounding buildings were already close to 100. There were 34 Nazi Zombies. And then you still need to count the rest of the 6 suburbs. And you claim that it's "150-200 people, perhaps less"? Lol. User:Generaloberst/s 22:39, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   Ah, but you're making the assumption that there is an even spread of survivors across all suburbs. In actual fact there's a significant skew in numbers towards the North and East where the forts and "more important" malls are. The south-western suburbs are actually fairly empty in comparison. Likely only 30-35 on average. -- Cheese 22:46, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   100 (malls) + 34 (nazi zombies) + 6*30 = > 300 User:Generaloberst/s 22:50, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   Number of people in suburb =/= number of active participants. -- Cheese 23:09, 11 April 2012 (BST)

   Ah, now that it turns out you weren't right with your "150-200 people, perhaps less" you try something else... I haven't counted them. And I don't know all the 'behind the screen' work such as revives. Therefore that means I can't make an estimate, based on what you define as "strength". User:Generaloberst/s 23:30, 12 April 2012 (BST)

I have really missed arbies cases like this. You know, cases that are actually... about something. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:21, 12 April 2012 (BST)