Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Silverback

Recusal
Why has User:Kelly Martin not recused herself from this case? It is vital that she do so. Sam Spade 17:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware of no reason why I should recuse myself from this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_bureaucratship/Kelly_Martin
 * 
 * Requests_for_comment/Admin_culture_of_abuse_and_tolerance_of_abuse
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

[ by Sam Spade 18:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC) James F. (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC) ]


 * Silverback's RfAr had already been accepted at the time of the RfC, so his targeting of me in that uncertified RfC can be seen as an attempt to poison the well and will not yield a recusal. The same can be said of his votes and comments on my (now-closed) RfB.  My comments regarding Ryan Delaney on WP:AN/I were a statement of generally-accepted policy and a statement on the appropriateness of a summary block as punishment for his alleged misconduct.  The comment on the talk page is my explanation as to why I refused to participate in the RfC, nothing more, nothing less.  In general, attempts by a party before the ArbCom to entangle an Arbitrator by forcing a negative interaction upon him or her will not be grounds for recusal.  Your motion is therefore denied. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be a very foolish decision. Your integrity has already been brought into question, and this may be just the sort of obvious abuse of authority your accusers require. Sam Spade 18:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This matter has been discussed among the arbitrators and no basis for recusal has been found. Fred Bauder 19:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Silverback/Evidence

I am not silverbacks advocate, but I advise him to concentrate on this particular, and I will be bringing it to the communities attentions. We deserve to have him and others fairly tried, and I feel that is impossible given the present circumstance. Sam Spade 19:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be disappointed if Silverback would be distracted by such groundless wikilawyering. It is highly distateful. Kelly has done nothing to require her to recuse, in my opinion. If you have some real evidence to show, please do not hesitate to do so, but until then...
 * BTW, could you please remember to sign your posts.
 * James F. (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This request is so vacuous it beggars the imagination. If you pick a fight with an arbitrator while you have a case pending, you do so at your own risk. Kelly has no obligation to recuse herself and I would strongly encourage her to stay on, and let this serve as a lesson to dissuade others from trying the same stunt again in the future. &rarr;Raul654 04:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul, and JamesF, I doubt either of you is familiar enough with the facts to respond with such conclusive hyperbole. First of all, I pointed out Kelly Martin's hypocrisy before the arbitration case here: .  Despite that, I purposely gave her the benefit of the doubt in my RfC about admin abuses and tolerance of abuses, although in fairness to the other admin's involved, I thought her failure to act, at least deserved mention: "I also accuse all of the above administrators of a "failure to act" and allowing the violation to stand, plus User:Kelly Martin, although, if Kelly failed to act because this in involved in the arbitration case, that might be a legitimate excuse."  Note, the arbitration case referred to here, is not mine, but Ultramarines.  Note, that my admin abuse RfC, was never intended as an RfC user, but to bring up the general issue of admin abuses and culture of tolerance of abuses to the community for discussion.  In that RfC, I also mention Kelly Martin's prior statements that indicate a double standard, not out of any kind of vendetta against her, but out of shear laziness, I had already documented it, so it was easier than looking around for any of the hundreds of other admin failures to act in the face of admin abuse.  My intent was to get the ball rolling in that section, nothing more, so Kelly Martin's poisoning the well accusation is unwarranted.
 * It is Kelly Martin's behavior after the arbitration case was filed, not mine that should be considered in any recusal by her. She has been unable to maintain a neutral and unprejudiced judicial demeanor.  Consider her comment on her talk page in response to my courtesy notice of the RfC. "That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process."  She has already concluded I'm a troublemaker.  Believe it or not, although I thought she should have recused after making this statement, I had completely forgotten about it until Durin brought it up on the RfB and I had even voted for her.  That is further evidence that I wasn't personally targeting her in an attempt to poison the well. I had been following her statements, and had concluded that she was sincerely trying to do good.  When Durin brought up her response to my RfC, that along with other injudicious acts, I reconsidered my vote.  I still think Kelly could do a good job administering the RfA vote process, however, I no longer think it is appropriate for her to be an arbitrator and an admin.  Her inability to take substantiated criticism without labeling it slander, makes it clear that after my criticisms, she won't be able to act rationally.  She has prejudged me as a "troublemaker" and her dismissive characterization of my writing as a rant, would seem to imply that she won't even bother reading the evidence I present.
 * Even if you two, knowing her better than I, believe she will do a fair job on my arbitration case, maintaining the appearance of a fair process is also important. There are already quite a few disaffected persons in the community that recognize the admin culture of abuse, the double standard, and lack of fairness.  Hopefully those in leadership positions, will try to correct and not confirm this impression.--Silverback 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Closure time
At what time was this case closed? Can someone please add this to the front page?

Request that this be reopened.
Apologies for my inactivity, Since Nov 10th I have been on travel, first attending a scientific conference and then immediately upon my return, I again left to visit family for the US holiday of Thanxgiving. I return to find that my case has been decided upon particularly harsh terms, without my having a chance to respond to the evidence, to document offenses by the other parties that either merit sanctions themselves or perhaps mitigate the allegations against me, and the attempts I made to resolve disputes with them. This appears to have been rushed, when compared to cases filed earlier which are still pending. I also note that there has been no response, other than a hurried closure of this case, to my discussion of the Kelly Martin's behavior above that should have resulted in her recusal.--Silverback 12:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)