Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision/removed thread

message: Could you all just hush a moment and listen. While I'm sure the Arbs find the thought of emasculating me in the Wikipedia sense hugely clever and amusing, in reality as they well know no man hangs about for such a fate. Functioning eunuchs  may be a part of life in the world they inhabit in mine they are not. If the price of informing the wider community of deals cooked up between the Arbs and IRC is castration then I  think;  "God help the lot of you".  I love some of the comments here  implying I have not been remorseful enough - well tough luck my dears that is not how the world works - I regret nothing.  The community has the truth, the old Arbs subterfuge is open for all to see, and I still have my balls which  must be very hard for the them  -  lets hope they never get to get to choke on them - for choke they surely will. Giano (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm signing off the internet now for a few hours. I hope when I get home that you have modified your comment to express your view but not be overly provocative. FloNight (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ....but Flo, darling, which part, excuse the pun, is the problem? Giano (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For my part I don't care if you're remorseful or not; it's unseemly to demand an apology not forthcoming and doesn't accomplish anything. We asked you to comport yourself in a dignified and professional manner--I think we all had comments like the one above in mind. The "truth" need not be obscene. Mackensen (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comport myself Mackensen? I rather think it is you, and your friends, who are grasping for composure and God knows what else.  As well you might.  Giano (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm grasping for retirement so that your blowups become somebody else's problem. I welcome you, or anyone else, to show me where and when I've acted unprofessionally, or made intemperate remarks. I imagine one or two of the latter have slipped through in the last month. Mackensen (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You kept quiet! You knew what you had agreed with Gerard! You said nothing! You allowed this situation to develop! I'm glad you are retiring, do find something useful to do, the devil finds work for idle fingers. Giano (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was having a quiet Christmas with my family, except for working on Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be facetious Macky, you know quite well what I mean. Giano (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't know what you mean. I'm dead serious. During the whole escapade I was offline; spending Christmas with my family and in-laws. I popped on Christmas Day to create the IR&HB article. I first knew something was up when it started being discussed on arbcom-l. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Durr.........the Arbcom (remember you are an Arb) discussing with Gerard that he owned the page, the whole reason this case is taking place! Giano (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost like talking to a backward child, isn't it? Yes, the series of discussions which took place a year ago. Which you were well aware of, since you verbally abused a number of us after the announcement was made. Please note the related finding, in which arbcom states that David was mistaken. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mackensen you are a disgrace! That is how your term on the Arbcom will be remembered. Giano (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, some of these outbursts are making it hard for editors sympathetic to you and many of your actions here to remain sympathetic. As one of those editors, I wish you would cool down the rhetoric a little...insulting people never helps. Whatever you are trying to accomplish, it's not going to help find a peaceful and equitable resolution to all this. And isn't that the point? RxS (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No not any more. Enough is enough. One can only listen to so much. The Arbcom cooked up a crooked deal with Gerard, then sat on it, and are now shooting the messenger. What did they seriously expect me to do and think? Giano (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they thought they had a solution to a real problem, dropped the ball on telling folks about it, and forgot a major key componenet of all chat formats....that people behave inappropriately in chat formats all the time.  Therefore, the solution was only 1/2 the solution, but didnt' matter because no one knew about it.  If anyone knew about it, it would be thier responsibility to ask the committee, or DGerard, or Mackesen explain this understanding appearantly reached in early 2007.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the sole intent at this point can't be just to insult people can it? What good can that do anyone? And even if that's all that's left for you, it's not helping others who may still be trying to find a fair way out of this. This is a mess, and it's getting worse...at some point things are going to get so polarized that there will be no way out. There are still editors trying to make the case that to this point things are terribly lopsided, I tried to say that before the page got locked last week. But you're just undermining other people that are still engaged in the process.  Just throwing insults around for the heck of it is beneath you, and it's making it harder on everyone, friend or foe. RxS (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Mackensen, I'd like to offer an example. You posted to me on one of these pages that all I was doing with my comments was trying to further my "feud" with Kelly Martin. First, I have no "feud" with Kelly Martin; I have objections to some things that she has done, and more importantly, objections to the way those issues have been handled. But secondly, I definitely wasn't trying to further any of those issues, simply using them as examples (I now can't find the diff of your comment, so I can't show the context). In any event, I felt your comment was contemptuous, and was the kind of remark Bishonen talked about when she said she expected contempt from you. I was very surprised to see it, as I'm not aware of having done anything to earn your contempt, but clearly I have. The point is: I saw it as an "unprofessional" remark, because ArbCom members are ideally not supposed to display bias right in the middle of a case, and it stopped me from contributing any further comments. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the remark quite well. I admit that I was short with you, which I regret, but I was also trying to fend off the bringing of old disputes into a new case. Mentally I linked this with your allegations against members of the mailing list, in which you accused JamesF of leaking material to Kelly Martin. You'll recall that I didn't concur in that. Kelly Martin is not a member of the community at this point and does not have much relevance to current dispute resolution matters, save as a gadfly and lightning rod. There's enough bad blood in the case as-is. All that doesn't excuse my manner, and I apologize for being so short with you. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no worries. Thank you for the apology. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Squeaking and turning around we go Mackensen has got his mouth in his toe. <with apologies for translation> Giano (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A few weeks ago, I predicted that Uninvited Company will be proposing pronouncedly one-sided remedies which will have no chance to pass, and that the reason for doing this would be to elicit a heated response from Giano, which can then be used against him. And 'lo. El_C 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please also refer to my two notes to arbcom-l dated November 30, 2007. The reader should also be privy to the last comment here. El_C 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was previously a prediction of bad faith, and now it is an accusation? You should substantiate or remove that comment as exactly the sort of inflammatory commentary that is unnecessary in this case and in general. Avruchtalk 19:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I submit no further comments at this time. El_C 19:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giano on Giano