| Revision as of 19:45, 30 November 2005 editSilverback (talk | contribs)6,113 edits →Specific question from Silverback← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 30 November 2005 edit undoKelly Martin (talk | contribs)17,726 editsm Reverted edits by Silverback (talk) to last version by Kelly MartinNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :I will not recuse myself merely because a party to that case has previously criticized me. That would be absurd: people criticize jurists all the time. I have never acted in retribution to being criticized, although certainly some people have misinterpreted my actions as such. I will recuse myself when I have a conflict of interest (as required by ]). During my service so far as an arbitrator, I recall two cases from which I have recused myself (one where I had mediated the underlying dispute, and one case frivilously filed against me), and one additional case where I considered recusal but did not. ] (]) 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | :I will not recuse myself merely because a party to that case has previously criticized me. That would be absurd: people criticize jurists all the time. I have never acted in retribution to being criticized, although certainly some people have misinterpreted my actions as such. I will recuse myself when I have a conflict of interest (as required by ]). During my service so far as an arbitrator, I recall two cases from which I have recused myself (one where I had mediated the underlying dispute, and one case frivilously filed against me), and one additional case where I considered recusal but did not. ] (]) 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::Would you have us believe that you would have filed the RfC against Durin even if he hadn't documented unflattering evidence against you in the beaurocrat vote?--] 04:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I have previously stated many times, I only filed the RfC because Durin issued an ultimatum demanding that I file it. If he had not issued that ultimatum, no RfC would have been filed. ] (]) 04:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So you would have continued thinking that Durin had slandered you if you hadn't been goaded by his ultimatum into making your feelings public?--] 04:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I feel that this line of questioning is unprofitable, and will not entertain it any longer. ] (]) 05:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That is the opposite of openness, and taking responsibility for your past behavior. I welcome scrutiny and acknowledge rather than deny past mistakes. That doesn't mean that I agree with all criticisms and judgements, but facts at least should be acknowledged. You may not agree with how Durin portrayed or interpreted your behavior, but your response did more to confirm than dispute his case. If this process is going to involve a vote, in the interest of openness, I think you should agree to a restoration of the RfC for all to see, or, offer an explanation of how your judgement of the circumstances could have been so opposite that of the rest of the community. It is judgement that is questioned here.--] 08:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have restored this discussion after Kelly Martin removed it, for some reason she considers a discussion about her judgement inappropriate when considering her for a possible arbcom position.--] 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 30 November 2005
Question from Radiant
On your request for bureaucratship, you stated that everybody who opposed you did so because 1) the opinion that we don't need more bureaucrats, 2) the opinion that an arbiter shouldn't be a bureaucrat, or 3) personal dislike. Are you willing to accept that there may be criticism of you that is not based on personal dislike? Radiant_>|< 16:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have misinterpreted my original statement. Since your question is based on a misinterpretation of what I said, I will not address your question further. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Since your original statement was "The editors opposing me on my RfB are doing so for one of three reasons: they don't believe that we need more bureaucrats; they do not think that an arbitrator should also be a bureaucrat; or they do not like me personally", please then explain how it should be interpreted? Radiant_>|< 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- It should be interpreted as my observation on the nature of the votes in opposition to my candidacy at the time I made the statement. At the time I made that statement, I believed it to fairly represent the people who were then opposing my candidacy. It does not (as you seem to be claiming) indicate that I believe that no possible other reason to oppose might exist. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Since your original statement was "The editors opposing me on my RfB are doing so for one of three reasons: they don't believe that we need more bureaucrats; they do not think that an arbitrator should also be a bureaucrat; or they do not like me personally", please then explain how it should be interpreted? Radiant_>|< 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Another question from Radiant
Could you please briefly give your vision on what happened in the recent debacle with Durin? If a similar situation turned up in the future, would you handle it differently, and if so, how? Radiant_>|< 16:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Out of respect for Durin's wishes to put this incident behind us, I will not discuss the incident further. I suggest you do the same. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, but I have. The important part of my question is if you would handle such situations differently in the future. I'm sure you can talk about that without referencing Durin or any particulars. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- The next time a situation like that occurs, I will file the RfC immediately instead of assuming that an issue is settled without one. You see, I enjoy bloodbaths, and I generally assume that my fellow editors enjoy them too. I also will not make the mistake of assuming that other editors will assume good faith and treat everyone as if they will breach good faith at a moment's notice. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, but I have. The important part of my question is if you would handle such situations differently in the future. I'm sure you can talk about that without referencing Durin or any particulars. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I did a family law clinic when I was in law school that consisted mainly of having people lie to me. And I've been on ArbCom for the last couple of months, during which I've also had plenty of experience dealing with people lying to me -- most of them far more creatively than the liars I had to deal with in law school. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Specific question from Silverback
Given your extreme and apparently retributive reaction to criticism as demonstrated in response to criticism during your beaurocrat vote and its aftermath, can you be trusted to recuse yourself when parties have previously criticised you, in order to maintain the appearance of fairness and avoid the appearance of seeking retribution?--Silverback 13:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I will not recuse myself merely because a party to that case has previously criticized me. That would be absurd: people criticize jurists all the time. I have never acted in retribution to being criticized, although certainly some people have misinterpreted my actions as such. I will recuse myself when I have a conflict of interest (as required by Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy). During my service so far as an arbitrator, I recall two cases from which I have recused myself (one where I had mediated the underlying dispute, and one case frivilously filed against me), and one additional case where I considered recusal but did not. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)