Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/AntonioMartin

First of all, happy new year to all voters. I have been working here for three years and three months. While I know that alone doesn't mean I could be an arbitrator, I promise if I am honored with such position I will do my best to solve discrepances according to wikipedia principles, and to keep expanding wikipedia into the website I think it will be, in other words, the website of the 00's. Furthermore, I will keep pursuing unity among writers. Antonio New year, new resolutions Martin'' 12:37, 1 January, 2006 (UTC)

Questions from -Ril-

 * Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?


 * I have strong political views, like anyone else. As far as Religious views, I don't. My neighbor practices Islam and I'm a Christian and we are very good friends. If the occasion shall arise where I neeed to intervene in a case of Democrat vs. Republican, I would study the case and solve the dispute by asking them to help peace prevail. After all, we see enough war as it is anyways, and everyone has a "side" of the story, whether it be right or wrong. Also, remind people that Wikipedia is a vehicle to learn, not to create disputes. Antonio Mr. McCartney Martin.


 * How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?


 * If another arbitrator contests my decision, I would talk directly to the arbitrator. Arguing with other arbitrators would not be a solution, it shows a bad example of dispute-settlers. A middle point can always be reached with diplomacy. Antonio Dancing Chair Martin.


 * Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?


 * No. Every request is worthy of a look precisely because of our responsability to be fair to each side. Antonio World Boxing Council Martin


 * In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision?


 * Definitely. Fairness at Wikipedia is based upon investigation. If someone is constantly attempting to disrupt our job as information spreaders, then we need to talk to the person who does that and if the person is non-responsive to talk, then we need to proceed accordingly. Antonio NBA Junkie Martin

--Victim of signature fascism 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Another question

 * What are your views of the proposed Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights? 


 * I believe both the code of conduct and the bill of rights exemplify what wikipedia stands for, fairness and non-fauvoritism for all. I think they are perfect for our website. Arbitrators shall not take sides in an argument, unless one side is exceedenly offensive to the other. That is very simple. I think the rules and guidelines are very good and useful for us and future generations of wikipedians.

Antonio The Latin American Bridge Martin

-- HK  16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Further Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for your questions. Mr. Wales is our President, and I greatly respect him as a person. However, if an arbitrator commits a blatant rule break, such as sexually harrasing another contributor, decisively taking one side during an argument and telling the other side that he or she is wrong in a rude way, or insulting the combatant parties, then an arbitrator should be stripped of his rights. After all, country Presidents can get impeached, so why not arbitrators who break a simple rule?

Secondly, I believe in the unspoken rule "majority rules", therefore, I believe that a vote of, say, 75 percent of the voters requesting a censorship, as you implied by giving the numbers of 150 against 50, should prevail. One of the best things about Wikipedia, and I cannot get tired of praising this, is the fact we are a democratic webpage in the sense that we do not bring down the subjects we write about, but rather inform the world about these subjects in a comprehensive way in which everyone can understand the subject in depth, while having all angles on such subject covered. If an arbitrator does not want to be censored, then the arbitrator should not take sides on controversial topics such as politics or war, but try to solve the problems between the warring parties in a peaceful way instead. If a call for peace doesn't work, then there are other, non-law breaking, ways in which an arbitrator can deal with the sides, such as warning one side that he or she can be banned, at least for a period of time, for posting non-neutral thoughts on a subject.

Which leads me to the third question. When I first came to wikipedia, on September of 2002, I wrongly wrote some articles about boxers where I expressed my feelings about them. I used to think at the time, that wikipedia was a magazine-type website. I learned my lesson and soon after began writing what can be arguably called purely neutral articles. I try to only write proven facts, such as news about a star that have been announced by the star. I would write a fact that contradicts my beliefs if it is a proven fact. However, I have stood by the wikipedia law of neutrality for a very long time.

Once again, thank you for your questions and I hope I have covered each of your doubts on the topics you inquired about. I will be glad to answer any more questions directed towards me.

Antonio Project Runway Martin 4:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?


 * I pledge to abide. Antonio Lo que Paso Paso Martin 9:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.


 * No, I agree with all of wikipedia's rules or rulings. Antonio Bart Martin

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?


 * I pledge to help. Being an Arbitrator is a privilege many serious wikipedians could enjoy. As a force of writers, I feel we are making internet history. Everyone who has worked hard to make wikipedia what it is today, is capable of being an Arbitrator. Antonio Should I be? Martin

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.


 * No. I wasn't informed that such a page existed. I would like to take this moment to thank you for letting me know and I will see the page. Antonio Jack in the Box Toy Martin

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Im always available for any questions geared towards me. And I want to thank you, for bringing these issues to my desk. As a wikipedian, everyday I'm learning more and more that my purpose here is to serve the people of the world through education and to help keep peace and unity among our writers. Antonio ? Martin 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism page
How would you deal with teh problems on the anarchism page?Harrypotter 17:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):


 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)