Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Terence Ong

< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was withdrawn. Please do not modify it.

Terence Ong

edit

Final (62/28/10) ended 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Terence Ong (talk · contribs) – Terence Ong (was TerenceOng1992) is an active and enthuaistic Wikipedian, a familiar face in both Articles for Deletion and the Singapore Wikipedians community. He has previously declined his last RfA, but I feel that he should be ready now to be given the mop and bucket. He has racked up over 6,000 edits in the span of 1 year, and I believe that he will put these new responsibilities into good use, and in the benefit of the encyclopedia. Mailer Diablo 11:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Terence is a great help to Afds. I don't see why we should not get him to have the mop.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept the nomination. --Terence Ong 13:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After much consideration, I have to withdraw this RFA. Sorry, if I disappointed all my supporters of this RFA. I feel that it is not time yet, the earliest time would be after 25 May. I have to focus on my studies and therefore would be less active. Thank you for voting. I would especially like to thank thank Mailer diablo, Siva1979, Tdxiang and Moe Epsilon for their strong support and nominations. --Terence Ong 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nominate and support. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support - Leidiot 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, the user shows good understanding of process by participating in many AFDs and RFAs. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to neutral pending answer to additional question below. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose after considering his answer to the question. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support without reservation. --Myles Long 14:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Neutral Support Needs to keep a cooler head than he did during this nomination on IRC, but I believe he's more than capable of learning this lesson. Good and experienced contributor. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 14:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Definitely. Proto||type 15:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to neutral. Proto||type 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support easy support, thanks.Gator (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Nothing I've seen from this user would lead me to vote otherwise. --BWD (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Agree with all of the above. Seems like a good guy. -Mysekurity 15:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --Sengkang 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Conscious 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cliché Support; honestly thought he was already. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 16:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support definitely! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 17:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support will use the mop appropriately. --Alf melmac 18:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Lot of useful work on xfD, such people are much needed. Pavel Vozenilek 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Pick your favorite RfA support cliche, all of 'em would be applicable. youngamerican (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Could use more user talk edits though. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I like what I've seen of him. Forget the ageism. —Nightstallion (?) 19:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. An active and capable editor. PJM 20:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Excellent contributor. Sango123 (e) 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. STRONG OPPOSE.... err.. I mean ..Support Would like to see Terence with the mop. Although more interaction with users on thier talk pages would be better. Definitely deserves it after a year of good-faith editing. Moe ε 21:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Will be an asset to the project. -Colin Kimbrell 21:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Yeppers, this is a good one. JIP | Talk 21:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Every interaction I have had with him at AfD has been positive, as as such, support by my criteria. Batmanand | Talk 21:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Jaranda wat's sup 21:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I respect Essjay's opinion, but I also feel that adminship is no big deal (he meets my baseline criteria) and Terence is unlikely to abuse the tools. --Alan Au 21:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. --Rory096 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Knowledgable, polite and helpful. Good article contribs alsoBlnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Good memory of this editor. Good luck with the mop. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Bandwagon Support    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I've been thinking about this one for a while, and now I've finally decided to support. --TantalumTelluride 00:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. He's good. --Vsion 01:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PROVISIONAL WEAK support, with concerns about age (nothing personal), and suggest that nominee chooses one or two more experienced admins to help him out for the first two to three weeks, and could potentially change to oppose/neutral depending on answers. NSLE (T C) at 01:09 UTC (2006-03-16)
    Changed to neutral. NSLE (T C) at 05:19 UTC (2006-03-16)
    Changed to strong oppose. NSLE (T C) at 00:22 UTC (2006-03-17)
  33. Support --Khoikhoi 02:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support.Long time friend!Oh, well, ther IS a cabal here.Haha, joking!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 02:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support-- Finally! support. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. he has my full support! ILovEPlankton 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support looks fine to me.--MONGO 05:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Hahnchen 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support of course. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|e|Chugoku Banzai! 06:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. A positive and friendly user who is a credit to the Wikipedia project. Brisvegas 07:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support--Jusjih 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I don't like the emphasis some place on 'boy' and 'kid' (we do have administrators who are under 18 and they're doing fine, age means nothing, maturity means everything). I like what I've seen of him - seems to be fairly well grounded (he could be a bit more grounded but there's time for that). Time to hand over the mop. - File:Ottawa flag.png     nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand, it seems you're supporting because the opposers/neutralites oppsing due to age? Plus, not all of them, and indeed, with age comes maturity, so I think that age may be a valid argument (I'm not too sure someone at 14 is as soundly mature, as, say, a 19-year-old admin). Plus, if you read Ral315's oppose (mind you, Ral315's similarly a "kid"), the concerns are more about his maturity than age. NSLE (T C) at 08:44 UTC (2006-03-16)
    Well since this comment was obviously directed at me, let me explain that I use boy as a term of endearment, and I was saying that I like Terence. I call other people boy, or that boy all the time, regardless of their age. This was no underhanded attempt to say anything about age. I clearly stated that my objection was maturity. Age was never mentioned, nor is it a factor for me. pschemp | talk 03:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-16 08:54Z
  44. Support. David | Talk 10:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I do not have IRC, though Essjay's points were a bit concerning. Seems good enough to me though. GizzaChat © 10:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Enthusiastically gets involved in the process stuff. Harro5 11:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support-- Get to mopping, slave!!  Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  48. Support. b3virq3b 12:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Shows enthusiasm for the project and interest in learning the nuances; he's been working with several admins as mentors to help understand process. Needs to not take comments here quite so personally, as evidenced by the IRC debacle earlier, but has shown excellent judgement and restraint in prior disputes. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 13:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Ahonc (Talk)   14:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Very Strong Support I nominated him in his last RfA, but he declined. This shows that he has a high level of maturity. Now, I feel that it is time to give him the mop. The additional responsibilities given to him will only benefit Wikipedia in the long run. He is also a very friendly user and I am proud to give this user my full support. A very experience user. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Insert a comment here from above, that pretty much says what I think. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 15:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. As an aside, I haven't interacted with Terence -- or any other Wikipedia user -- on IRC. Personally, I don't trust myself to use IRC without saying something stupid. I learned my lesson four years ago. --Elkman - (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support what's up with you people? Opposing someone solely based on what happens in some chat room? That's really lame.  Grue  19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, worthy of the mop. haz (user talk)e 20:14, 16 March 2006
  56. Support Of course --rogerd 00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - hard work should be rewarded with harder work. bd2412 T 01:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, Terence will do fine as an admin. NoSeptember talk 01:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support per nom. -- mmeinhart 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong Support Definitely. Friendly guy :D opt1m4l
  61. Support Enthusiastic and definitely qualify on the basis of contribution to the archives of Singapore-related articles. Slivestré ¦ Pfrt ¦ PAve ¦ Dcn ¦ Cntn ¦ Ei ¦ 15:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please excuse me if I'm speaking out of turn, but adminship isn't a barnstar (which Terence definitely deserves). I also find the listing of RFAs on special interest noticeboards a little bit distasteful personally (and that's not a criticism of Terence, as he's most definitely not the first to be so listed). I see it as exactly the same as dropping "support me" messages onto user talk pages, which is generally frowned upon. --kingboyk 15:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its worth noting that Terence was not the one who added that notice. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And also that Kingboyk didn't say that Terence did. pschemp | talk 15:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support --Latinus 00:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Weak STRONG Oppose per Essjay. Mild maturity concerns, motivated mostly by ageism on my part; "Better safe than sorry" vote only, which am reluctant and sad to cast. Xoloz 16:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to STRONG oppose after the IRC incident and incivility to KOS. This is clearly not the time for adminship here. Xoloz 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, though reluctantly. Although he is a very enthusiastic and helpful contributor, I don't think he's mature and stable enough (yet) to become an admin. --JoanneB 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I know this boy, I've talked with this boy and I think he's a good editor. I am so sorry I have to oppose, but I share JoanneB's concerns about current maturity. pschemp | talk 01:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Strong Oppose Mostly per Essjay's neutral below... Terence is a friendly kid, and his work is not bad at all. But adminship is not a reward for being a good editor. Based on interactions on IRC, I do not think this user is ready for adminship. KnowledgeOfSelf 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed my vote to strong oppose. After logging on IRC this morning I was greeted with an accusation of ageism, and accusations of racism, before that. He has also said things like this to his neutral and other opposes voters. This solidifies my reasons for voting oppose, it also equally convinces me that this user is not ready for adminship.
    • I have see Terence on several occasions on IRC, both before and during this RFA, and reading the requests about elaboration on Terence's IRC conduct I'm not quite sure what to say. Anything any of us can say about it will be 'hear say', and I don't want to impose my opinion on anyone else. I can however confirm what KnowledgeOfSelf is saying about the accusations of ageism. --JoanneB 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best thing for this would be for you to read Terence's reply to KOS in the comments section below. I think that is fairly explanatory. There is a written record of the conversations, but I will not be the one to make IRC logs public. It is the behavior, not the words that is the issue here. Personally, I don't really enjoy being met with repeated accusations of ageism and racism, especially when I clearly stated in my vote and more than once in conversations that age is not a factor for me. While there is no rule against personal attacks and campaigning for votes on IRC, I find that kind of behavior offensive and troubling.pschemp | talk 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above; I don't think this user is ready for adminship. Not because of age, but because of maturity. Ral315 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. After reading the above problem, I have been tipped over into a weak oppose. Terence means well, and has done great work, but the recent problem highlighted and some of Terence's slightly panicky behaviour over neutral votes has made me just this >< more confident that the maturity most admins have isn't just there yet. This is nothing about age -- I was promoted at the same age myself, and Ilyanep is a bureaucrat at Terence's age (I think; he could be a bit younger/older). But impulsive panicking is just that -- impulsive, and no well-meaning can make up for mistakes made due to impulsive panics. This really saddens me -- almost as much as opposing Karmafist's RfA, but I cannot remain neutral on this. I'm really sorry. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Having seen his comments to KOS on IRC, I was horrified. Ageism? Racism? Assume good faith please. I happen to trust and respect KOS very much and such comments are very uncivil. I don't care what age he is but his maturity certainly isn't up to par with what I expect from an Admin. --Celestianpower háblame 18:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose. I initially voted neutral, citing concerns about Terrance's knowledge of policy. However, on seeing how he has responded to those who have voted neutral/oppose, I cannot in good conscience remain silent. Attacking other users is never appropriate, and certainly not to respond to oppose/neutral voters with accusations of racism. Additionally, he shows a tendency towards instability that simply cannot be tolerated in administrators; admins are given access to restricted functions in the expectation that they will use them fairly and in line with policy. His comments on this page are evidence of this: "Stress and frastruation makes me do unusual things at some times." Admins are exposed to a great deal of stress and frustration, and promoting a candidate who demonstrates an inability to deal with such stress is simply reckless. It is a desysopping waiting to happen. Essjay Talk • Contact 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Essjay and Celestian's concerns. --Fang Aili 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Per Essjay's oppose (not his neutral) Prodego talk 19:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I believe Terence's apology to KOS below is heartfelt. That's good, and bodes well for him. I hope he'll transition into a fine Wikipedian, courteous and helpful, mindful of the unwisdom of his actions today and of the hurt he can cause his friends and colleagues by making remarks such as that and this. All the best. —Encephalon 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose. Civility and maturity are perhaps the most important qualifications for an administrator, and the evidence of these qualities is not strong enough at this time. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Terence, you're a good editor who has shown, with your apology to KoS, the willingness to atone for past mistakes. However, reading these comments and seeing your impulsive reaction makes me unconvinced that you won't exhibit the same impulsive behaviour as an admin. Demonstrate in your future activities that you won't be as impulsive in the future and I'm sure you'll get a lot less oppose votes the next time you come up for RFA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per KoS and Essjay. Immaturity during an RfA does not bode well. With that said, be patient, try again in a few months and I'm sure you'll do fine. –Joke 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, per Essjay and others. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Essjay (his oppose comment above) Trödel 23:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose, cannot have uncivil admins, plus accusation of racism is severe. Poor handling of a proper edit (as shown below by Kimchi.sg and JoanneB), and subsequent discussion. Not conducive behaviour for an admin. NSLE (T C) at 00:22 UTC (2006-03-17)
  18. Oppose, having an admin that supposes a new anon is a vandal, even without clear-cut edits indicating so (refer to the link provided by JoanneB below) doesn't sound good. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose per Essjay. Doesn't give me much confidence in him as an admin, though if he is more civil in the future I may be willing to change if he goes up again. -- SonicAD (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per Essjay. Agree 100%--Looper5920 07:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, he clearly does good work on AFD and is an active vandal fighter. But against that, he seems to be a bit too forceful in his actions, there are some unpleasent accusations highlighted, and his question responses give a feel of using a hammer to resolve problems, rather than gently nudging things along. For an admin, I think behaviour is more important than contributions, so that weighs my vote to oppose. Kcordina 10:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. My RfA criteria includes a section on "Mistakes/Errors in judgment", which states that its not so much making mistakes that's the problem - it's how they are dealt with/responded to. Apologising for the comments make on IRC seems acceptable (although I wasn't there and don't really know the details). However the comment by JoanneB below, with reference to the Britney Spears revert and follow up on User talk:70.52.230.176 is more of an issue. In addition if Stress and frastruation makes me do unusual things at some times, it might not be a good idea to be on the receiving end of more stress and frustration as an admin. Petros471 10:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose for ad hominem characterization of motives in this RfA. Jonathunder 16:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Most of my thoughts have already been said much better than I could. - TexasAndroid 18:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. oppose this time anyway, when so many of our most level-headed admins feel this negatively about a candidate, I think it best we at least wait. --Doc ask? 21:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose unless and until the candidate provides convincing replies to the questions I am asking below. VivianDarkbloom 22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Thumbelina 23:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose He's a great editor and I hope he stays a great editor. But great editors do not always make acceptable admins. John Reid 04:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

My interactions, especially during discussions via IRC, have not left me assured that he understands Wikipedia procedure fully. His AFD work is nice, but I've not seen a lot to suggest he understands when the use of admin functions is appropriate. I expect admin candidates to have a strong understanding of how to be an admin before they are given the tools (this is not to say I don't believe there is a certian amount of on the job training that comes with the territory), and I'm just not sure it's there. Neutral for now. Essjay Talk • Contact 15:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose. Essjay Talk • Contact 18:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Essjay. I am not convinced that Terence has the experience or maturity typical of admins, but I don't see any good reason to oppose. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC) (switched to oppose)[reply]
Neutral - still thinking. Poke me on my talkpage if I haven't changed my vote in a couple of days. --Celestianpower háblame 16:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose. --Celestianpower háblame 18:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per John, Esjay and Xoloz's oppose. I respect their judgement. Hiding talk 20:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral AfD participation consists of a tremendous amount of "per nom" and the like, but I don't see many (any?) original arguments being made. Also refers to AfD as a vote in his answers, despite his heavy participation I'm not sure how much he understands the underlying concepts. Still, this isn't enough for me to oppose right now. --W.marsh 22:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral as per aforementioned comments, particularly Essjay's. --ZsinjTalk 00:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral pending some explaination of someone of IRC behaviour. (As with CelestianPower above, someone smack my talkpage with a message if I haven't changed anything by Saturday.) -- Jjjsixsix (t)/(c) @ 02:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral per Essjay, and from limited interaction on IRC. Were I to know him better I'd consider voting either way, so as with CelestialPower and Jjjsixsix above, someone notify me to take a look later in the week. -- SonicAD (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    changed to oppose -- SonicAD (talk) 04:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per answers below, I'm feeling a bit concerned at how he'd react to certain situations. Not all bad, not oppose-worthy. Also, still suggest that nominee chooses one or two more experienced admins to help him out for the first two to three weeks. NSLE (T C) at 05:19 UTC (2006-03-16)
    Changed to oppose. NSLE (T C) at 00:22 UTC (2006-03-17)
  5. Neutral I am undecided with this vote as I think that there are many advantages that would become of this user being granted adminship but at the same time I wonder about his abilties to put into practice many of the underlying factors of adminship. --Ali K 08:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    neutral unless he promises to forgive people when they ask to be forgiven ILovEPlankton 03:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral until he answers my additional question. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming it's an anti-vandal-revert-without-checking I could produce a similar diff for somebody whose RFA isn't even listed yet and yet already has about half as many plus votes as I got in my entire RFA (a revert which rather annoyed me actually, as the anon in question had a whole batch of edits reverted and yet most were well meaning). I could also point out a recently promoted admin who didn't know what PROD is, and another who closed a batch of AFDs after 3 days. Let's not set the bar any higher for Terence than we do for anyone else. --kingboyk 17:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that I don't have a vote in his adminship but I would like to say that it wasn't the revert that bothered me so much as the way he responded to my question on his talk page, calling my edit "nonsense," "vandalism" and "POV." 70.52.230.176 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well thanks for the headsup, that's a little troubling indeed. --kingboyk 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose, after considering his answer. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral but leaning towards support. Terence has been great on the AfD pages, and age is irrelevant if his edits are good. However, the IRC matter is sligtly disturbing. If this comes down to a close vote, this should be considered a vote of support. JoshuaZ 03:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral for now, but have the page on watch and will continue to think about it. I voted against Terence for ArbCom, becaise I truly feel that experience counts in that post. I was of the opinion then and since that I'd happily support him for adminship, a job which a mature 12 year old could do quite frankly; we see each other on RFA frequently, and I've never doubted his commitment to the project. So, it should have been an automatic support from me. Sorry to say, though, that making 2 bad calls which cause other editors to doubt maturity in the first day of an RFA is a very bad and ill-considered start and I'm sorry but I will have to think this through and monitor the debate before deciding if I will support or not. --kingboyk 05:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral The IRC incidant makes me doubt this user. Jedi6-(need help?) 08:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral See him often on AfD and, as has already been mentioned, many of his contributions are per nom (even in cases which I have felt are far from clearcut). Clearly a good and committed editor, but I wonder about adminship just yet. Dlyons493 Talk 13:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Changed from support after incivility stuff on IRC, particularly accusations of racism. If it was on Wikipedia itself, I would have changed to oppose, but IRC is not Wikipedia, so we stay, much like my shitty car, in neutral. Proto||type 13:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 94% for major edits and 86% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 15:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Terence Ong's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
  • My response to what I said about KnowledgeOfSelf-- I sincerely apologise for my wrongdoings at the IRC channel, simply calling people ageists and accusing people who vote oppose or neutral racists. I was then assuming bad faith, as I took things to heart and thought it was discriminating as well as attacking me. However, I realised later, the votes were good faith and they were nothing against me. I know everyone must be mad at me for this situation and I lost my control due to concerns linking maturity. However, I must respect their vote at all times and don't get worked up. To admit, I have make myself a fool today at IRC by making statements of suspecting them as ageists and racists. This was a blunder, as I felt a bit down to see a number of oppose and neutral votes from Wikipedians. I felt paranoid and the reasons listed above. After I calmed down, I felt what I had done was extremely foolish and I was overparanoid. I hope you will take my apology sincerely and my actions will be forgiven. I will not do foolish things or make wrong and incivil accusations again on IRC or Wikipedia.

Accept my apologies --Terence Ong 14:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Well, since I do a lot of AFDs, some TFDs and MFDs, I will help close the discussions and for other things for deletion such as IFDs and CFDs. Of course, I will still participate actively in AFDs, TFDs and other things listed for deletion. I will help with RC patrol and if I spot any vandalism, it will be reverted immediately. I am shocked to see that some vandalism are not even reverted. Some useful articles get nominated for deletion due to the article not being cleanup and wikified. This articles just need to be cleanup and they will be fine. Well many articles have been nominated for speedy deletion, but many do not fit the criteria. If not, I will bring it up to AFD or its respective places for deletion. I do see lots of vandals, attack/ imposter usernames, WoW, the Communism vandal sockpuppets as well as other sockpuppets, I am helpless in this situation as I cannot block this users. IP addresses who vandalise should be blocked as they are disruptive to the community. I do not tolerate vandals and trolls, but if they are clueless newbies testing pages, I will give them a chance to learn. Articles that are copyright violations should be fixed immediately and I will help fix it or else delete it
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Anglo-Chinese School (International), Thum Ping Tjin, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and Light Rapid Transit (Singapore). Anglo-Chinese School (International) and Thum Ping Tjin are articles I've written from scratch and is one of the articles that I wrote which are not stubs. I have provided most of the content for both articles. Well, there are some additions and alterations to the article which I do not mind of course since we are an encyclopedia. I am contented at the articles' standards currently, and hope in can be further expanded or improved if possible. Though I did not contribute much to Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore), I feel that I have contributed something to the article and its sub-pages. It is currently a featured article, and it is an effort put up by the Singapore community. For Light Rapid Transit (Singapore), I helped expand, cleanup and improve the article to the style of its sister article i.e. Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). I hope to pay more attention to the article in future, and hopefully become a good or featured article.


3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been in one major conflict, that is with Monicasdude when other editors and myself disputed at the FAC of Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) when he objected about it. He made points about improving the article, but still refused to accept the concensus. After the article was promoted to FA status, he still disputed that the article contained weasel words and the NPOV is disrupted. This went through a number of reverts and followed by a RFC. He removed my comments from my talk page thrice without reasoning, I was then part of his second RFC for his conduct. Also, I was once part of the dispute of the table listing the airlines serving Singapore Changi Airport as the WikiProject Airports wanted a standard format for airlines and their destinations served in a standard format. I made a personal attack without realising it was against it when I was still unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since then, I learnt not to make personal attacks on anyone and be civil at all times. Several months later, another editor and I had a dispute with its sister WikiProject over a Singapore Airlines subpages. This articles were sent to AFD and one was deleted and the other kept due to a lack of concensus. The dispute was whether the two articles, Singapore Airlines flight numbers and Singapore Airlines fleet violaged Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The two disputes with the WikiProject has since ended.

Questions from NSLe:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do? '
A: At first sight, I will block the editor's sockpuppets and will put a tag that it is a sockpuppet of that user. Also, I will bring this matter to the AN under incidents and I will try to gain a concensus of what to do. I will then file a WP:RFAr for the user, and let the Arbitration Committee handle the situation, should he /she an administrator be desysopped or not. Modified by Terence Ong at 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
A: The minority and I will discuss with the administrator who speedied it at his talk page and we will try to come to a concensus. If the concensus is to just speedy it, I respect it and will not persist any further to keep the page.
3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
A: If the article meets CSD criteria, then it I would try to explain and give them a {{test}} warning and some policies and guidelines for them to read at first, but if they keep vandalising my userpage and make incivil comments too many times. I will definitely block them for a short period. I will check if its a shared IP. If so, blocking will not be as long as I will impose.
4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A: Well, the situation really depends. I will both respect the other admin's decisions and will try to mediate them on IRC and email. If they cannot solve the conflict after my mediation. If that one party still ignores my mediation, I will definitely submit a comment/statement to the arbitration case. However, if the ArbCom rejects the case, I would try my best to continue mediating them. If one party uses hostile language or personal attacks reapeatedly after their block expired, I will remind them to remain civil. If they violate the Three-revert rule, I will file a report at the 3RR section of the administrator's noticeboard.

I'm sorry for the late answers of NSLE's questions. --Terence Ong 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kimchi.sg:

1. Please explain the reason behind this edit: [1]
  • Comment Hmm, that's an error many Wikipedians who are involved in 'vandal fighting' have made in the past: you see edits without an edit summary, you've seen tons of vandalism on that and similar articles, and you make the wrong decision to revert. It's far from desirable but it happens. However, what's important to me in a situation like that (as every admin will have made mistakes, big or small, in the past) is the response afterwards, when you figure out you were wrong. And then here's the edit that worries me more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:70.52.230.176&diff=44064026&oldid=44062865. Terence is notified by the anon that that anon was not vandalising, and responds with "JUST DO NOT VANDALISE". --JoanneB 17:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: As Britney Spears is one of the most vandalised pages on Wikipedia, I accidentally reverted the anon's edit by accident considering it vandalism. That is why it is useful to use edit summaries while editing. Many editors accidentally think most edits by anons are vandalising, and don't look through it carefully. However, I will be very careful in reverting anon's edit. After hearing from him that this was a legitimate edit, I realised that I made a mistake. --Terence Ong 02:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator Mailer Diablo

  • We have a lot of young fellow Wikipedians out there who 'learned on the job', from their past mistakes, and matured faster in the process. I must admit that in a sense I'm throwing him at the deep end of the pool, but I nominated Terence in good faith that about 12 months is sufficient for him to know the basics and learn from any mistakes in the process. I don't really expect this RfA to turn out like this, but I have one advice to offer best for Terence : Think twice before you send. IRC/IM is a place where one can be really tempted to type faster than one thinks, and this is why I've stayed away from Instant Messaging and only log on to IRC occasionally. I used to have similiar shortcomings in the past before I joined Wikiedia, and learnt painful lessons before I become what I am now. Just don't worry too much about the outcome of the RfA, be confident! :) - Mailer Diablo 07:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Vivian Darkbloom:

1. In your reply to Kimchi.sg's question, you gave no explanation of your second response to the anonymous editor you falsely accused of vandalism. Why didn't you simply apologize to the anon editor and remove the false accusation from his talk page? Why do you try to excuse your inappropriate behavior by claiming that "many editors" make "accidents" like the "accident" you made? I've never seen a series of comments like that from an experienced & responsible editor, certainly never someone who claimed he should be an admin. If "many editors" have "accidents" like this, can you show us some other examples?
  • Comment. I can completely vouch for him. Vandalwhackers make mistakes all the time, nobody's perfect. I can give you several cases of where I've erred in my reverts, if you'd like. --Rory096 05:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


2. In every deletion discussion I've noticed you in, you've always voted along with whatever the majority wanted at the time you voted, and I've never seen you make a point that someone else hadn't already made. Haven't you ever read an article, felt that the majority was wrong, and tried to change the outcome? Why not?
A: Yes I do read them. Does it mean I vote a keep on a vanity and non-notable biography? It is as simple as that, this type of things are obvious delete votes. I do have my points.
3. You are one of a small number of friends of a disruptive user who was blocked, over over and over, for refusing to follow Wikipedia's rules, who was banned by the Arbitration Committee for edit warring -- but you took part in a very strange move to hide his editing history and convert his user and talk pages into a memorial, hiding all his warnings from administrators and the Arbitration Committee, all the notices of bans and blocks, all the records of his very bad behavior. Doesn't this show a deliberate lack of respect for Wikipedia rules? How can other users expect you to use administrator powers impartially & responsibly when you have already bent rules to favor a friend? [2][3]
A: I did not create the memorial for Huaiwei, but I did sign on the vigil. Huaiwei has contributed a lot to Singapore-related articles profically. We have lost an editor who brought SGpedians' together and created a noticeboard. Mailer diablo is an admin for your information. --Terence Ong 05:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching for answers to questions 1 and 2 myself. However, I believe you're accusing Terence of something he didn't do. Mailer diablo seems to have performed the edits to Huaiwei's personal pages you're talking about. user talk (Though Terence did sign the vigil.) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 23:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Terence_Ong&oldid=1089730426"