Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/AntonioMartin: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:16, 5 January 2006

Revision as of 03:45, 5 January 2006

Line 43:

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|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.

''[[User:AntonioMartin|Antonio Project Runway Martin]]'' 4:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)