This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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) reply

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) reply

On second thoughts, I'm not withdrawing. -- Terence Ong ^Talk 14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I withdraw. -- Terence Ong ^Talk 02:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Support. Better than most ArbCom members I've seen. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. -- HK 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose.' Too new. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Maybe next time. Neutrality ^talk 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. Some interesting ideas re: policy. But as Neutrality said, maybe next time. Batmanand 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose too young, too less experienced -- Angelo 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. I think age 13 is too young for this skill. Crunch 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    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) reply

18. Bobet 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. I draw the line at 14.-- ragesoss 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose 172 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose - Need more people interaction to understand intracies of Arbcom responsiblity novacatz 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. android 79 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Opppse-- cj | talk 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose warpozio 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose Maybe next time -- kingboyk 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. -- Kefalonia 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. — Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose.  Grue  14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. — Dunc| ☺ 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose - Too young. -- Thorri 17:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. Lack of experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:32 Z
40. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Splash ^talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. older≠ wiser 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Terence Ong ^Talk 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

44. Oppose. Bans are personal attacks. Avriette 07:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose. — It's-is-not-a-genitive 15:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose, I can't support anyone who withdraws then returns to their candidacy. Prodego ^talk 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
50. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
54. Oppose His actions (withdrawing and resuming his candidacy) reflect his age and inexperience. -- EMS | Talk 05:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply