Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Terenceong1992
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Thank you. --Terence Ong Talk 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Questions
If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask and I will respond to you as soon as possible.
- What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?
--HK 21:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The Code of Conduct is a good thing to do as it will keep things civil in Wikipedia. I do support the Bill of Rights as it will make cases with no favourtism to any party, and neutrality will be the best. It also helps to remain the civility of editors during a dispute resolution if they retalliate. --Terence Ong Talk 03:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
