Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Terenceong1992

Terenceong1992
This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

I am a Wikipedian since January 28 2005, and I have some knowledge about ArbCom. The ArbComm is a place for the final stage of dispute resolution. I have made around 2500 edits as of January 6 2006. I do apologise for my late application for the elections.

The Arbitration Committee has done a far satisfactory job, but it can be much better. I would revamp the ArbCom from what it is like now. Arbitration is the final and worst way to solve a dispute. The ArbCom can be improved by having more arbitrators than now, as it will come to a concensus faster than what it is now. Some can take as long as three months, which I feel is a total waste of time. If I am elected as an arbitrator, I will help to come to a decision faster. The Arbitration Committee should cooporate to agree on the decisons. The committee needs a more cooporative effort than what it is now. Current members take quite some time to vote on the proposed decisions on that particular user and those involved.

I find edit wars quite disruptive, and I am strongly against vandalism. Other ways of solving a dispute, maybe using Mediation. I would have a fair view and see what is the best to solve the dispute. Blocking users should be done for those who have make a disruptive enviornment to Wikipedia. Civility is a must for all editors, I do not like personal attacks at all as this is a community, not a battleground. Banning should be done on very disruptive editors, and those who are vandals. I believe banning should be done on very serious cases. If not, a probation for sometime, or a month's block. --Terence Ong Talk 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Withdrawal

I would like to withdraw from this election, as I feel that I am not experienced enough and some have said of my age. In ArbCom, this two things are the key points. I will do other things on Wikipedia instead. For those who supported me, thank you for voting and I'm sorry about the time you've wasted. --Terence Ong Talk 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I'm not withdrawing. --Terence Ong Talk 14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I withdraw. --Terence Ong Talk 02:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Better than most ArbCom members I've seen. -- Миборовский U 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -- HK  23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Terence,age matters not.All it matters is tat you can suceed in everything that you do.
 * 5) Support. Lacks general experience, but seems to have fair idea of what arbcom is for.--JK the unwise 12:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.' Too new. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Maybe next time. Neutralitytalk 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Some interesting ideas re: policy. But as Neutrality said, maybe next time. Batmanand 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose too young, too less experienced --Angelo 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. I think age 13 is too young for this skill. Crunch 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rationale should not be because of age, but experience. Just thought I'd comment. Age is often linked, but never a real indictator of true ability. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Bobet 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I draw the line at 14.--ragesoss 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose 172 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Need more people interaction to understand intracies of Arbcom responsiblity novacatz 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. android  79  06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Opppse--cj | talk 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose warpozio 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Maybe next time --kingboyk 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - just. Shows an astounding amount of knowledge and skill for a 13-year-old, but still, it's too young to be able to ArbCom, and too little experience. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. --RobertG &#9836; talk 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose.  Grue   14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 16:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose - Too young. --Thorri 17:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. Lack of experience.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z 
 * 23) Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Splash talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) older&ne;wiser 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Terence Ong Talk 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Bans are personal attacks. Avriette 07:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. &mdash;It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 15:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, I can't support anyone who withdraws then returns to their candidacy.  Prodego  talk 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 10) Oppose. looking for a history that indicates future ability to arbitrate --JWSchmidt 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose His actions (withdrawing and resuming his candidacy) reflect his age and inexperience. --EMS | Talk 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)