Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2007-09-20-User:Erasculio

→ moved from User talk:Dirigible

(The initial paragraph from Karlos is duplicated from the original page:)

Hi,

I'd like to ask ArbComm to take up and evaluate my request for arbitration against Erasculio. He has been harrassing me since day 1 (for reasons beyond my comprehension as he supposedly comes from GWOnline, which I do not read/post in).

I submit as evidence his contrubtions to these discussions:

1. Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Karlos
2. User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Game-Related Topics/August 2007#GW:EN's release tomorrow...
3. Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration_committee/2007-09-19-User:Skuld#Arguments for ArbComm rejecting this case

The basic premise is that he always turns the discussion personal about me, he always attacks me in his debates and is never trying to reconcile views. Basically, intimidating. While I am more than capable of matching his bully tactics, I think they are very unhealthy and I feel if not stopped he will bully many others and the wiki will only suffer because possibly good ideas will get killed by his blind zeal and his inability to rationally discuss things with users he has a "grudge" against.

I have asked him to stop this trolling and harrassment and was told off by the same type of bully tactics:

1. User talk:Erasculio#Please stop...

And I seek as as judgement that he is ordered to stop and that upon furhter such interactions is blocked accordingly.

Thanks, --Karlos 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting this kind of thing to happen, but not so soon. Now that one kind of arbitration committee has been requested, we get one more request, a pointless one this time, just to try and make a point about how questionable such commitees are. Which actually bring a good question, Karlos - based on your comment here, do you think I should be "somehow banned for life" or that my behavior "can be judged by GWW:NPA and punished accordingly"? Since apparently it's one or the other...Erasculio 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Erasculio, you are, again, twisting Karlos' words and intentions to something that they clearly aren't. He is not making a point about the commitee nor does he want you banned for life. Read his last words from the aboce comment: "And I seek as as judgement that he is ordered to stop and that upon furhter such interactions is blocked accordingly." He just wants you to stop replying to him in such a negative and unconstructive manner and only wants you to be punished if you continue it further. -- (gem / talk) 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What I am asking for is listed above. Last line, it starts with "And I seek as judgement..." --Karlos 21:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Gem, your statements are in contradiction to what Karlos said himself on Skuld's talk page. He did say, "If the issue is that Skuld's pattern of behavior has gotten so bad that he is now a 'threat' to the wiki that must be "dealt with" and the implication is that if found guilty, he is somehow banned for life", after stating how "Skuld's behavior (good or bad) can be judged by GWW:NPA and punished accordingly". If he's asking for a committee here, he obviously does not believe my own behavior can be judged and punished by GWW:NPA. From his own words, if I cannot be judged and punished by GWW:NPA, it means my "pattern of behavior has gotten so bad that he is now a 'threat' to the wiki that must be 'dealt with'", and therefore the same implication ("if found guilty, he is somehow banned for life") would apply. Not that I agree with any of that, of course, but I am highly curious to know why did he claim an user's behavior may be dealt with GWW:NPA as an argument against an ArbComm, and right after that asks for an ArbComm himself. Erasculio 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gem is right Erasculio. You appear to be latching on to the secondary points of all his comments and then bringing it to the top as if that was the main point. The sentences you took are out of context. The whole point of his argument is that he does not understand what is being asked of the ArbComm. And he was making a point that Skuld's behavior is not grounds for ArbComm intervention. Which is why he specifically stated what sort of outcome he was hoping to see for this arbitration request. To me, his request is actually clearer than Aiiane's in terms of possible resolutions. -- ab.er.rant 05:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for ArbComm rejecting this case

Karlos does not understand when he’s wrong. It’s as simple as that, in the end. This is easily seen in many ways, but my favorite one is how he keeps trying to link my behavior toward him as some sort of personal problem. With statements such as “(even though we never had a single conversation prior to that on the wiki or off it)” (as seen on the first paragraph here) or “(for reasons beyond my comprehension as he supposedly comes from GWOnline, which I do not read/post in)” (as seen here), he makes clear that he cannot understand how I’m not acting thanks to anything he would have done to me – rather, thanks to how I see his actions as hurtful to the wiki as a whole.

His replies to my actions, in other hand, appear to come from the idea that I’m seeking him constantly. He posted a question on Gaile’s Talk page (here) and I did my best to give him whatever information I had available, while waiting for Gaile to give a full reply (as I had done before, and kept doing after as well, whenever I thought I could help). His reply was an aggressive one, as seen on that page, despite an user claiming that he had misunderstood the tone of my post. He continued to attack me (breaching NPA, as usual, with his “why assume that Gaile is as blind as you are” comment), and even after the subject had been resolved, he made a new comment for no reason other than to attack me (the one with “and despite Mr.Erasculio's vehement assertions”). Gaile herself pointed how he was being unfair, and that he had misunderstood my intention, to which he replied with random accusations.

Ironically, at the same time he posted the at my own talk page (here) asking for me to stop “harassing” him, and beginning with an intimidation attempt (saying I would “force” him “to ask a bureaucrat to intervene”). I gave him the same speech others had given on Gaile’s talk page – that he had misunderstood my intentions, seeing them from a far more paranoid point of view than intended, and yet (regardless of how often that had been told him), he chose to ignore my words and keep his twisted perspective.

Xeeron intervened, and asked us to avoid replying to comments from the other. I decided to do so…Yet Karlos decided to invite conflict again, both by ignoring Xeeron’s advise and posting on a discussion asking for a reply from me (as seen here) and deciding to mention me (despite how I would be the one harassing him) without the need to do so here.

That last link is interesting, as it shows why I think it’s odd how Karlos is actually complaining about “harassment”. What was the need to use an insult such as “the brave Xeeron, enforcer of centimeters on user pages” to make that argument? Why did he make an insulting and sarcastic comment such as “the holy Aiiane herself”? Why, in my talk page, did he call Tanaric “Tanaric the Beyond Reproach”, using such sarcasm when he wasn’t even talking to Tanaric? How comes he often use those little insults, yet he is never presented to GWW:NPA?

So no, I don’t think there’s any need for an arbitration committee. I think the answer here is logical – block me from interfering with him, and him from interfering with me, including using me in one of his sarcastic comments. That’s childish, but given how the situation is, I think it’s the best solution we’re going to get. Erasculio 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to submit this as further evidence. As usual, he starts with how I'm flawed in some way. This kind of personal analysis + analysis that always ends up with me having a psychological problem instead of focusing on the issues and making points about the problem is exactly what I am objecting to and exactly the kind of behavior that I believe is being used to initimidate users and make them feel bad about arguing a point that Mr.Erasculio does not agree with.

His argument that I am objecting to something yet doing it is actually irrelevant, because it's like saying "You can't hold me accountable for running a red light cause he runs red lights too." An eye for an eye is rule for the jungle, not the wiki. Justifying bullying by saying the other side is not nice in their claims either might work on Forums, where he size of your e-penis and how emphatically and brutally you make your arguments wins... This is not the forums.

However, Erasculio's claims are invalid. His claim that my sarcasm (friendly and among people I know) is somehow equal to his hostile bullying style is a joke. And the basic underlying principle that I somehow "deserve" the way he argues is EXACTLY what I want him to be penalized for.

His solution is odd because, in all those interactions, he comes in first, guns blazing and starts assaulting my person. I don't understand how he sees it as a solution to block us from interacting with each other when that was ALL I asked of him on his talk page. Just avoid me and I'm already avoiding you. But he would have none of that. I think it's important that ArbComm point out to him that there is a flaw in how he sees things. I think his reponse here is ample evidence to exacly what I am saying. --Karlos 22:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So you deny that, after Xeeron told us to avoid each other, you decided to ask me a question? And you deny that, after that, you decided to mention me, together with other insults to users who have argued with you in the past? All this while I was avoiding you? Also, do notice how what I asked is different from what you asked - you asked for "that he is ordered to stop and that upon furhter such interactions is blocked accordingly", while I'm asking the same, but applying to both of us. You would have to show a restrain that you did not display previously. Erasculio 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned you as an example saying that "I (<-- me) do not like your style of arguing" which, is not an insult to you in any way shape or form. And I was not under the impression that there was an injunction by Xeeron that we not deal with each other nor that you even accepted such an injuction. Can you show me where you said yes (or no, or maybe) to Xeeron?

What you're asking for is what I asked you for without ArbComm and was told by you on your talk page that the problem is entirely a figment of my own imagination and paranoia. Now that I am taking official action, you are asking that we are told to stay away from each other. I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned, your actions are bully tactics, your response in Skuld's arbitration talk page is VERY rude, uncalled for and EXTREMELY personal as if you have some kind of problem with me and I am frankly sick and tired of people pretending this is somehow mutual or called for or normal. I want ArbComm to tell me that. To tell me they're okay with your rufian tactics so that I then pack my bags and leave this place for good. This is baiscally what's happening... I am falling on my own sword and just need one little shove. I highly doubt ANYTHING will be done to you so you need not worry. --Karlos 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See, this kind of reply is exactly what I would expect from Karlos. Notice how he said, "His argument that I am objecting to something yet doing it is actually irrelevant", and then goes on a nice religious reference. Yet there is a contradiction there - how may he be against something he does? "Bully tactics", such as insulting the sysops here for being "all brainless janitors"? Or as in saying, in a very long discussion, that he's "appalled with the few people who have protrayed this as being a fight between two reasonable points of view"? Claiming that those with a different opinion are "totalitarian dictators" and a "Vocal Minority"? Using his (former) position as an admin under the mentality that admins "hold power and sway over discussions", so he would be free to hold that position when in a discussion with someone else as if it empowered him? Taking unilateral action while ignoring completely the discussion about the subject, and claiming he was proud of that? Using sarcastic insults left and right (like "the brave Xeeron, enforcer of centimeters")? Typing in CAPS as if he were yelling, threatening to call an arbitration committee over an user he doesn't like?

How can someone who does all of the above complain about "bully tactics"? I'm not saying that he deserves to be treated like that - but for someone to complain about the very same thing he does is, in my point of view, (and I apologize for the word, but I can think of no other that is fitting here) hypocrisy of the highest degree. I already tried to make it clear to him that I wasn't harassing him, but to see this discussion, with statements such as "VERY rude" and "EXTREMELY personal" coming from who it's coming, truly amazes me. Erasculio 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to submit this as further evidence... A steady stream of "Here's why he deserves what I do to him. The problem is in him. He's a hypocrite, he's typing in CAPS to yell at people, he uses sarcasm, ..." --Karlos 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I have just said that I don't think you deserve to be dealt with as you do to others. I have already said I'm not trying to harass you. I mentioned how I was avoiding you, yet, despite all my "harassement", you didn't even notice I had decided to avoid you. Yet...You are not listening. You are repeating my own arguments ("he uses sarcasm", "His argument that I am objecting to something yet doing it is actually irrelevant") without even trying to deny them. Could you give me an explanation? To say why using a statement such as "the holy Aiiane", about someone you have argued with in the past, isn't an insult, rather something that would improve the discussion? Could you explain to me how saying that those with a different point of view were "totalitarian dictators" was not an insult or a "bully tactic"? Could you explain to me how saying that the admins here are "brainless" is not an insult? I cannot find those answers without linking all those acts together to reach the conclusion I mentioned above. Erasculio 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I politely ask both of you to perhaps back off from one another until ArbComm has a chance to decide whether or not they wish to accept Karlos' petition to review the situation? I think you've both stated your views on whether or not the case should be accepted and most of this is going around in circles now while we wait for a response. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To be honest the both of you are trying my patience, if sysops were not "brainless idiots" and could act on instinct rather than policies I would have banned the both of you hours ago, to go take some time to relax. As it is you are both attacking each other, and if it carries on I will take action, before it even gets to arbcomm. --Lemming 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! An admin threatening to act in an administrative arbitrary capacity not as dictated by law? Lemming, your job description does NOT allow you to cast aside the janitorial overall and act as a sentient human being I am afraid. :( I'm not taunting you, I'm just saying, according to the policies of this wiki, you actually can't live up to your threat of action. Thus, the threat carries no weight. :( --Karlos 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect, whether you can see it or not, the both of you are attacking each other, personally, "There is no clearly defined rule or standard about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion..." from NPA, leaves some interpretation as to what constitutes a personal attack, and while neither of you may be calling the other a mofo goat-herder or whatever, you are not limiting your comments to the issue at hand, or the content of post you are replying too. I appreciate the tenseness of the situation here may be a factor here, which is why I asked you to both calm it down. --Lemming 11:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion to make this into a mutual arbitration

Simply from the above conversations between Erasculio and Karlos, it seems to me as an outside observer that both individuals have somewhat irreconcilable issues with each other and could benefit from an organized arbitration between the two of them. May I suggest to the committee that should they decide to accept this case they do so instead as an arbitration between both parties. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the proper place to do this a new page, like the one for the committee about Skuld? I have the feeling we're cluttering Dirigible's talk page without the need to do so. Erasculio 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no "proper" place to do it yet, since nothing has been set in stone. I have a feeling that if/when such a guideline is in place (as Gordon Ecker has already begun organizing), this can be moved. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Declined. I want him to stop harrassing me. I don't care if he contributes to a discussion I am part of, I want him to stop "accusing me" and "analyzing me" and "bullying me." I don't think the wiki benefits from ArbComm standing there every couple of weeks to tell each two that don't like each other "Ok, avoid each other for X weeks."

I think that even if we avoid each other for N weeks, we will still have the same problem as long as he thinks his behavior is OK and no one has the guts (cause they're all brainless janitors, as I am told) to tell him to stop using this style of debate to begin with. I feel that it is obvious that his style of debate is VERY detrimental to the wiki and I feel that he needs to be told to reconsider it. This is what is at stake here. Erasculio does not only pull that crap with me and will not stop at me. Please keep the ArbComm request on what the original petitioner wanted. If you feel my own behavior in this wiki has been anywhere simlar to his, by all means, if ArbComm condemns him for his behavior, feel free to ask them to extend the same ruling as policy to me. --Karlos 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny how "I feel that he needs to be told to reconsider it" is different from " I seek as as judgement that he is ordered to stop and that upon furhter such interactions is blocked accordingly"... Erasculio 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think this is the right course of action. If anything, it appears to me that solving disputes between two users was the original idea behind the ArbComm. Since we clearly have one here, if the ArbComm don't want to handle this, I'm not sure what it's supposed to do. Backsword 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Move

Do you guys perhaps want to move this to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2007-09-20-User:Erasculio, this was meant as a heads up to Dirigible and a request. Debating the issue belongs to the discussion of the arbitration itself. And I am sure Dirigible would appreciate his talk page not being pinged every 5 seconds. --Lemming 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather let him, Xeeron and Biro decide if they want to start a case or not. It's really their decision. They are fully capable of telling me to get take a hike and that they do not want to even start a case. Up to them really. --Karlos 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A question to Karlos and Erasculio

I'm looking back through talk pages here, trying to pinpoint an exact moment where this hostility sprang from, but I'm having trouble finding it. It seems somehow things escalated from the user talk page policy/"civil disobedience", to Karlos' RFA, and then to the issue on Gaile's talk page, took a break for a bit and exploded again on Skuld's RfArb and here we are. It began as mere disagreement, continued to probably overly-personal replies, and progressed to what we have now, Wiki War III (as was referred to by someone on IRC), with both sides up to their necks in NPA waters.

With the exception of Xeeron's comment, I don't see any other attempt to calm the waters. Several members of the community today have shown that they care about this case, that they too would like to see this issue resolved. And here is where the question to both of you comes in:

Are you trying to find a solution to this problem, or are you trying to prove yourself right and the other guy wrong?

If the former, then my suggestion would be to not make this an ArbComm matter, but instead lets try to figure out a way to deal with this situation all together, giving those members of the community who care about both of you a chance to try and help out. It'd be great if we could solve this problem between us, without having to resort to asking the teacher to spank either/both, or take other arbitrary measures. This path would involve deciding what to do from this point on, instead of dwelling on who said what and what they meant by that.

If on the other hand you guys are dead set on wanting to prove that the other guy's actions are wrong, I agree that leaving it to the ArbComm would be a better idea than leaving it to the community, as the chances of getting a conclusive answer would be higher. But, while the chances of getting such an answer may be higher, they'd still be far from 100%, you may still very well not get the answer you seek; the most basic function and purpose of the ArbComm is simply to look after the wiki by trying to make sure it remains a non-hostile environment. As someone wise once said, we're not into public floggings here.

The decision is up to you, guys. My personal preference and recommendation would be to take the non-ArbComm route, and to try and solve this between ourselves. Requiring an arbitrary decision by three guys in opposite sides of the globe should be our very last measure, as the solutions they'll give will always be Pyrrhic victories; each of these decisions means that all previous attempts at communication and all good intentions between the involved parties have failed. I believe they still have a chance here, hopefully you'll agree with me. If you don't, let me know so I can add an "Accept" next to Xeeron's. --Dirigible 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Declined. As I explained above, I'd like to fall on my own sword. There's no truning back for me.

I feel I have been subjected to great injustice from day 1 simply because there are admins/influential users who "don't like me" and they carry enough clout/weight on this wiki to demonize me. This case of harrassment by Erasculio is a strong example of that. In all his extremely aggressive posting and his ridiculously intimidating style of debate, not ONE person (admin or not) has told him "ease of the hatorade bro" or "slow down" or "take it easy." Not once. I mean, even if he's not breaking NPA (I think saying that someone "doesn't know when he's wrong" or any such malicious personal anyalisis of other users constitutes a violation of NPA), it's really bad form. Yet not one person had the guts to tell him the obvious.

Yet, right now, I have this admin (and another admin voicing support) on my user talk page as we speak giving me "advice" and implying in no uncertain terms that it's MY way of saying things that antagonized Mr.Erasculio.

Well, I completely and entirely reject that notion. I believe he is out of line, I believe he was always out of line, I believe he is being pampered and coddled by his GWOnline buddy (Aiiane who at the same time is holding a trial for Skuld for being disruptive, oh the irony) and I believe it is wrong and a shame for this community to sit there quietly and not say anything about it. I will NOT sit there and watch this community be turned into a forum community where there are "leet" contributors who can get away with anything, and less than leet ones against whom the law is upheld. This is my plan and my grand scheme. I expect to fail and crash and burn as I expect you and Xeeron to try and avoid taking sides and thus come up with a lame duck solution, and I expect Biro to cave in to the new "hip crowd" of the wiki and decline to upset them by taking action against their pet bull-dog.

However, in the mean time, I reject your motion. I offered him a solution, I asked him to back off and he declined. Now he pretends to have accepted that solution and to have been backing off and that me saying "I don't like his style of arguing" somehow "broke that treaty" and so he set off to harrass me again on Skuld's talk page. I don't buy that. Every word he typed today indicates he think I deserve everything he has said and done to me. No remorse, no hope for change. I decline your request for mediation. --Karlos 05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As a somewhat unrelated observation, I find it odd that you consider Erasculio's analysis of you to be bullying, while you obviously consider it perfectly fine to predict that I will "cave to the hip crowd". LordBiro 06:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that you and I both know that you're biased against me, yet only I have the courage to admit it, while you don't. Here, let me help you:

File:Biro quote.jpg

Do you still consider yourself an impartial bureaucrat fit to take part in this arbitration? Come on. Let this charade play itself out to the fullest. --Karlos 06:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You've made enemies of everyone, Karlos. LordBiro is one of the most respectful people on the wiki; it takes a hell of a lot of being a pain in the ass to make someone like Biro say something like that. Were you expecting a different response? -Auron 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is he really that respectful if this is how he talks about other users behind their backs? And are you sure you're the one to lecture me, Auron? Want me to post your comment about me strapping a bomb as I martyr myself?

In a way, your comment was not surprising (albeit a bit low even for one with your low standards of civility). You never pretended to like me nor pretended to be impartial. For him, he's held to a different standard. He has to be as a bureaucrat. If your point is that I should expect no justice or fair treatment here, then we are in agreement. If your point is that I deserve this crap, then go ahead, join the line, it starts at Erasculio. --Karlos 07:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't make any pretence over the fact that I think you are a very difficult person, Karlos, and as I've said before on the wiki, I think you are paranoid and overly defensive, with delusions of grandeur. I also now think you are a hypocrite. Everything I say in IRC I presume will be available to everyone on the wiki; I honestly think posting logs here would be a perfectly acceptable idea. That said, I do attempt to show restraint, and I posted it in IRC because I believed it would inflame the situation less than if I had said it here. And I really wanted to say it. A lot.

On the subject of my impartiality, if the other two bcrats decide to accept this case I will decline personally. This has been my intention since very early on in this discussion. There is no way I can be an impartial bureaucrat because I have such a low opinion of you. I have never suggested that I am impartial in this case so I don't know why you ask if I still think I'm impartial.

In reply to Auron, I can think of no other user on this wiki or on guildwiki who frustrates me so much that it jeapordises my impartiality. I wonder if Karlos will consider this proof that he is challenging authority?

Regardless, I will attempt to stay out of this discussion from here. LordBiro 07:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference then between cussing at me on the wiki and on the IRC channel? If they are one and the same... Can I call for action against you for violating GWW:NPA then? I would like to if that is available. --Karlos 07:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Presuming that something will be available is not implying the two media are the same. The IRC channel is not officially part of the wiki and thus is not governed by wiki policies, nor does anything said there qualify for consensus or what not with regards to decisions on the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The link from the community portal that said "Join us on IRC Channel X" (which Xeeron conveniently removed, wouldn't wanna embarrass Biro any further) would actually link the two together. However, I am not concerned about Biro right now, I was just taking him up on his word that he does not mind posting logs here. So, based on that fake attempt at bravado, he'd be ok with posting a log of him saying "F***ing Karlos"? But that would subject him to banning. I was just calling his bluff. --Karlos 08:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just being a dick. If you're trying to make a point, make it, but stop this pointless dickery. -Auron 08:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LordBiro can not be banned for being quoted on something he said outside the wiki, Auron is in clear violation of NPA and I am getting really sick of having to read all this. Please make up your mind quickly on accept or reject Dirigible, so we can move on from here. --Xeeron 09:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To reply to Dirigible's question: I don't believe that will be possible, unfortunately. From the above discussion, I don't think me and Karlos are capable of solving this issue among ourselves. Erasculio 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements

Since this is now accepted for arbitration, can I now ask Karlos and Erasculio to make a statement on the arbitration page. Please post what exactly your problems are (I encourage links) and what kind of solution you hope for (dont forget this part). Everyone else is free to add in, but please do so on the talk page.

PS: A clarification, just so people know what they are dealing with. Just because the title says Erasculio, any rulings I will advocate need not be restricted to User:Erasculio. --Xeeron 15:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Some remarks regarding the ruling

First, to clarify what "replying directly" means: Replying directly is either posting as the next person in the talk page history towards the same topic or posting at a later state but referencing the other persons's post (e.g. by quoting or taking up and refuting an arguement made by the other). Post towards the same topic not replying directly to the other are still ok. Second, such an arbitration ruling is always only a measure of last resort. Especially, a state were both users interact normally is preferable to this ruling. Therefore, if both users indicate here that they want the ruling dropped because they do no longer see a problem in their relation, the arbitration ruling becomes invalid. --Xeeron 08:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean the section marked as "Draft" is now a final decision? --Karlos 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but I expect it to be very soon (unless Dirigible wants to change anything). --Xeeron 10:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)