Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Terenceong1992

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 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. Tdxiang (talk • contribs)
  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! - <*> 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose —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)
  18. Bobet 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. I draw the line at 14.--ragesoss 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose 172 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose - Need more people interaction to understand intracies of Arbcom responsiblity novacatz 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. android79 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Opppse--cj | talk 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose warpozio 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Maybe next time --kingboyk 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. 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 Germany 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. —Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose.  Grue  14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. — Dunc|☺ 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose - Too young. --Thorri 17:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. Lack of experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z
  40. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Splashtalk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. older≠wiser 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Terence Ong Talk 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Bans are personal attacks. Avriette 07:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. —It's-is-not-a-genitive 15:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose, I can't support anyone who withdraws then returns to their candidacy. Prodego talk 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. 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)
  50. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  53. Oppose. looking for a history that indicates future ability to arbitrate --JWSchmidt 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose His actions (withdrawing and resuming his candidacy) reflect his age and inexperience. --EMS | Talk 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Vote_Terenceong1992_dc45.html"