Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Terence Ong 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


[edit] Terence Ong

Final (91/51/8) ended 13:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Terence Ong (talk · contribs) – Terence Ong is an excellent contributor to Wikipedia with over 11, 000 edits in various areas of Wikipedia and has been here for over a year. He is a very friendly and humble user and has no hesitation in helping other users. I think that this user would be a great admin, given the active role he plays in combating vandalism as well. If he is given additional responsibilities, Wikipedia would benefit greatly.

Terence Ong had been nominated twice before. The first nomination, (which I nominated him) he declined it, revealing the matuarity of the user. In the second nomination he withdrew his RfA. I feel that the time is ripe for him to be an admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As Terence's admin coach, please consider this a co-nomination. Terence has been very civil to everyone, and has contributed a lot to this project. He passes all of my stringent criteria, which surely says something. I strongly opposed him the last time, amid severe accusations, but I believe Terence has understood his mistakes, and that incident has been cleared up. Also, for posterity, first RFA. NSLE (T+C) at 01:10 UTC (2006-06-06)
I would like to co-nominate Terence as well. I think he is ready now. (no additional comments from me, everything has been told above :-) )--Tone 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So do I.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!
  • As his current AC, and having previously nominated him, I also hereby give my co-nomination for his excellent contributions to the project and its community. - Mailer Diablo 09:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank my nominators for nominating me. --Terence Ong 09:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Terence is a remarkable young man; I believe he will join the ranks of Merovingian and Ilyanep as some of our finest young contributors. His kind and courteous manner will serve him well as an admin, and his photography shows dedication. -JCarriker 09:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Tone 09:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support – very experienced, will make a great administrator – Gurch 09:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. A dedicated, committed editor across many areas of the project. Zaxem 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - he should've had it a long time ago. -- 9cds(talk) 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - sounds highly qualified to become an administrator. RandyWang (raves/rants) 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, does good work on AfDs. The user is very experienced and he's nominated by NSLE, so no questions --Nearly Headless Nick 10:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support good work on AfD. Very civil. Looks to have learnt since last RfA. MLA 10:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - Clearly an experienced user, should make a great admin. --Scott 10:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support Seen him do excellent work at the AFD. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support I have seen him do a lot of good work at AgD, he is without doubt ready for the tools. Rje 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong support as per above, as co-nominator. NSLE (T+C) at 11:16 UTC (2006-06-06)
  13. Support =) — FireFox usertalk 12:31, 06 June '06
  14. Strong Support I have seen him do a lot of good work and even dedicating his whole day to taking photographs of Singapore and even trying to use a teacher's computer to edit so much to the extent where he is banned on using it. Such dedication should be very useful to the community. He deserves this promotion to adminship Leidiot 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support. Excellent editor and great part of the community. Terence has been my role model since I first saw him; I hope to be more like this user. DarthVader 12:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support of course. His involvement in SGCOTW has all of us see through our first Singapore-related FA. - Mailer Diablo 13:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Excellent editor. ForestH2
  18. Support Naconkantari 14:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support per Tawker -- Tawker 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ahem! What about WP:ASR? ;-p Misza13 T C 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support, I think. Adminship is No Big Deal, and Terence is OK by me, seems polite and tolerant. Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. (2 edit conflicts!) I support this great editor. (Yeah, editor! 'Cause he's actually building an encyclopedia here ;-) ) The minor issues raised below, can't convince me he shouldn't be given the mop. Misza13 T C 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Per Tawker. I find that although in the past he has done some questionable things, I really don't think we should judge him by what he did more than a month ago. ILovePlankton 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Crazynas 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Moving to oppose. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. [ælfəks] 15:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strong support. "Voting" delete on most AfDs isn't a reason to oppose. Most AfDs should be deleted. --Rory096 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    For the record, that bears no resemblance to my actual reasons for opposing. — GT 16:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe it wasn't about you? --Rory096
    Well it doesn't for anyone else's either. — GT 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support Yanksox 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Strong support of course! Computerjoe's talk 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - Hahnchen 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. Excellent editor. Good luck, mein Freund. haz (user talk) 16:58, 6 June 2006
  30. Support - my experience with this contributor has always been positive, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. BD2412 T 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. It's about time we give him the ability to close AFD's, block, protect, etc. Royboycrashfan 17:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support good dedicated user. Still solid edits after the last RfA. Good work on Singapore articles, Afd, etc. Just one thing, please write to the Afd edit summaries if You wanted a Delete or Keep, helps the closing user. feydey 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Struck per recent newbie biting [1]. feydey 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Cliche support Thought he already was an admin. Oldelpaso 18:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Support --lightdarkness (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - Yup! Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Nominator Support My reasons are stated above. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support.  Grue  19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Jaranda wat's sup 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. DVD+ R/W 19:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support per all above. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. I don't see any convincing reason to oppose. Terence can be trusted to close deletion discussions, and he understands how to deal with vandalism. --TantalumTelluride 20:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support per all above. G.He 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  41. Strong Support for the times he's reverted vandalism on my userpage! —Khoikhoi 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  42. Strong Support seems like a great candidate hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support as per last time. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  44. Merovingian {T C @} 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Looks good-- significant contributions. I don't think immaturity is an issue judging by the user page and comments from others. The oppose arguments aren't very convincing. Nephron  T|C 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support a bright light and a brilliant contributor -- Samir धर्म 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support I see no big problems.--Jusjih 23:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support why are all the good people being nominated when I'm on wikibreak??? Rama's Arrow 00:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  49. Already thought he was support :P -- Shizane talkcontribs 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Excellent contributions to the WP namespace. Kalani [talk] 00:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Seems to be a good guy, especially for the jobs outlined in his answer for the question 1 abakharev 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  52. Strong Support per all above. Werdna (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Mature enough to handle it. And passes 1FA. :) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|666 01:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support - a wonderful person and contributor. Sango123 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support as 3rd co-nominator. Terence has proven himself this time.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support, meets my standards. — Jun. 7, '06 [03:11] <freak|talk>
  57. Support Shows expertise and contributes to a broad range of articles.--Folksong 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  58. SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT. Excellent contributor, kickass guy, proves to be responsible enough for the mop. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support A contributor who will help WP with the tools. GizzaChat © 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Like last time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. All my interaction with him, directly or indirectly during another discussion, or just observing from afar, I have noticed his dedication to the project and to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 07:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  62. Weak Support- I'm just a little troubled by some of the arguments raised in the Oppose camp, mainly that Terence Ong basically just goes with the flow on most things and rarely takes the initiative, but I do believe this user has a good understanding of policy, knows Wikiright from Wikiwrong and won't abuse the tools. The Admin group has room for quiet achievers, and I do not believe that Terence Ong will be too timid to do what needs to be done. Reyk YO! 08:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support Not only a friendly user, but also one who understands fully what this project is about. The Halo (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. Active, polite, trustworthy to use the tools peopwely and well. -- Avi 12:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support per his dedication to Singapore articles and anti-vandalism efforts. - Tangotango 15:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  66. Weak support. There's no question he has the tools (and, well, I thought he already had the tools, but...); still, I would ask Terence to get one more: a stopwatch that counts to ten ;) RadioKirk talk to me 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support, good with the mop. --Vsion 17:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Rather experienced editor here at Wikipedia with significant contributions to the community. His maturity level has increased and he's now more qualified for the job since the last RfA. Think he'll be able to do a fine job once given the chance.
    - Advanced 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. Solid editor, should do well as an admin. PJM 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support Bucketsofg✐ 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support Appears to "speak" several lanaguges, a bonus point! :-)Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Terence Ong 2.com.au 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support--digital_me(t/c) 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  74. Strong Support -- from The King of Kings 18:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support I take his criticism seriously but I think he'll be allright. --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 23:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  76. Cleared for Adminship --Pilot|guy (roger that) 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support, great user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  78. Yes please - I havne't been able to write anything for two weeks since RfA and need someone to help delete stuff. All the delete-processing admins seem to have disappeared. I don't want to turn into a delete-processor. My first love is writing. If Terence promises to stick to the clearcut deletes then I hope you folks will change your mind. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support Joe I 08:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support. The first oppose vote *can't* be serious... —Nightstallion (?) 21:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. Admin's not a big deal, and Terrance seems to do a not bad god with the sweeping brush. I actually read this whole page, came across the racist remarks and then finally worked out that they we're in a discussion I was having with Terrance about Singapore Airport... Terrace immediately appologised, and that was the end of the matter, for me/wangi 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    Actually I believe that they are not accusing Terence of being racist, but saying that he had made such accusations about others during his last RfA. It (allegedly) happened on IRC and since I wasn't there (and haven't seen any logs) I don't know exactly what was said. — GT 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support In the few times I have talked to him, on Wikipedia, MSN Messenger and Google Talk, he has shown to be a very friendly person. He knows a lot about Wikipedia and can give helpful advice. Terence is a talented youngster. Being 14 myself, I have experienced much stress in my 5 months here, and I've not handled it well either. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support per nom. --Xyrael T 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support per nom Anger22 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support I don't he will abuse tools. Beside, anyone with this many edits should be a admin. The Gerg 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support, great user, lots of work on AfD, very civil--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support Fantastic editor, I don't really understand the complaints about a "lack of leadership" because he votes delete on bad articles... Plus, admins should only use deletion powers unilaterally (not per a community decision) when the decision is clear, so do you want an admin who has a history of making decisive, in-your-face deletion votes? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think people are looking for divisiveness so much as overt evidence of thought and attention. We want to be sure that he'll devote the appropriate amount of time and effort to situations that might fall under his jurisdiction as an administrator. Some of his edits might lead you to believe that he doesn't even read the articles up for deletion before commenting, to say nothing of a bit of research, and his contributions to AFD are often more along the lines of votes than actual discussion of the article in question.-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support I am always in favor of a Wikiholic! And you sure are one! Imhungry
  89. Support. He's reasonable, and his AfD contributions are generally well thought out, even if I may not agree with a small percentage of them. Erik the Rude 00:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support per various comments above. BryanG(talk) 06:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. Terence has a high percentage of edit summary usage (100% major, 74% minor) and his edits reverting tons of vandalism have proven to be very beneficial towards the project, imagine what more he could do with a mop and the position of admin. Эйрон Кинни (t) 11:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Terence is a very friendly person and makes lots of good contributions. That said, I don't support him becoming an admin. Many here use his AfD involvement as a reason to support, and yes he does vote on a lot of AfD's. However, as was brought up in his first RfA (see question 2 by Vivian Darkbloom), his AfD contributions are rarely helpful and tend to just follow whatever the general voting trend is at the time, usually consisting of nothing more than a one or two word summary. He was never seen espousing a minority opinion and his response to this concern was basically "Yeah, so what?". — GT 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    I don't believe that's a really good reason to oppose. If it is worth deleting, you don't expect someone to say keep, when they feel it should be deleted. This should not be held against him. NSLE (T+C) at 11:26 UTC (2006-06-06)
    I'm not expecting him to intentionally take the other side when something is obviously "worth deleting". AfD's are not always slam dunks. Haven't you ever been in an AfD where the first batch of voters made a rash conclusion before someone stepped up with some relevant information or convincing argument that swayed the consensus? With as much AfD participation as Terence has, I've never seen anything close to such a thing from him -- just the same old "Delete, NN" or "Keep, notable" after 10 other people have voted the same way. — GT 11:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    Don't want to seem like I'm pushing it, but if everyone took that POV, then you'd get only two or three AFD votes. After all, there wouldn't be a need to repeat "Delete, NN", would there? (BTW, on that point, if an AFD was about a person, and it was NN, I do believe Terence should take initiative to tag it CSD A7, but honestly now...) My personal opinion is that it's quite trivial to oppose on this count, but I respect your right to use this reason, and won't push this any further. NSLE (T+C) at 11:42 UTC (2006-06-06)
    Sorry, just a final reply to clarify: it's okay and useful to affirm with what others have already said, I'd just expect that once in while it would be the other way around. And the relevance of this to me is that I consider self-determination to be an important characteristic in an admin who will be placed in controversial situations, where I'd rather see decisions made based upon what is right rather than what other people have expressed approval of. — GT 11:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Seems like a good chap, heart is in the right place. But deficiency of initiative and leadership coupled with some previous examples of going off shows a lack of maturity. Ifnord 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. This user has spent a fair while advising other people to assume good faith, but this conversation shows me that he doesn't himself, and doesn't understand that it's a problem. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per above. The last thing we need is an admin who does unusual things when stressed. His unusual use of English would not be an insurmountable problem if not for these doubts. Sorry. --Guinnog 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. No offense to Terence, but I do not think he has the demeanor to be an admin. Adambiswanger1 03:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Users like Terence are always hard to judge due to their original edits being overwhelmed by vandalism reverts. It's great that Terence is so conscientious in vandal fighting but this is a minor role for an admin with respect to the skills required for the job. Reading the comments here, it seems that proactive editing is not the norm. Are all Terences RfA votes really support? This type of editing worries me as it seems to involve little critical thinking and is a pattern that suggests he is trying to be 'liked'. Will Terence be able to make the right decisions when his friends are in the wrong? This in itself is not enough for me to oppose, but after reading proto comments below i really feel i need to oppose. This comment "a tirade of racism and abuse via IRC aimed at anyone who voted 'oppose' - was only 3 months ago" really is worrying behaviour from an admin candidate. David D. (Talk) 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Are all Terences RfA votes really support? I don't know where you got that from, but I've seen him oppose users before, so the answer to that query would be "no"... the racism happened during his last RFA, after which he apologised, and I believ the apology was accepted. Does this mean that this incident is going to forever be held aginst him? That would be ridiculous, I think, so I hope that it's just because in your view, not enough time has passed. NSLE (T+C) at 06:54 UTC (2006-06-07)
    Thanks for your input NSLE. I have been thinking this over and i still feel uncomfortable with Terence's out burst as a result of the previous RfA. You're right that we should forgive, but three months is just too short and it would be easy for him to be on good behaviour knowing his new RfA is imminent. What would make me change my mind in the future? I would be impressed if Terence started outlining his rationale for votes. NN is easy to type but it convinces no one he has actually thought about it. Give him the mop (I made this up, I'm not sure if he has used this exact expression), or such, does not help us know why he believes someone would be a good admin. Sorry, but i have to stick with oppose for now. David D. (Talk) 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - what I've seen from this user in the past is that he does not handle stress very well. In the recent past, since his last RFA, I don't think I've seen anything that proves the contrary to me. I know Terence is very friendly and a good contributor, but being an admin will very likely get him into conflicts, and I think I have reasons to doubt his maturity in dealing with that. Also, I echo some of the concerns above, mainly from David D.: he has shown little independent decision making, which gives me little indication of his behaviour as an admin. --JoanneB 11:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Terence is friendly, witty and is always willing to help, no doubt about it. What I do doubt is his abilty to come to conclusions that are best for wikipedia and not necessarily for his friends' benefits. I do believe that past mistakes can be looked over once a user had changed their ways, but with the actions from his last RfA just a few months ago all too clear in my mind, I feel the need to Oppose.--Ali K 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. As has been laid out by those above, Terrence is completely unpredictible when dealing with conflict and especially criticism, something he'll experience on a daily basis as an admin. (His own "defense" of his behavior in the previous RfA makes this clear: "Stress and frastruation makes me do unusual things at some times.") He resorts to namecalling and personal attacks in an attempt to discredit and badger anyone who disagrees with him; his behavior on his first RFA was completely inexcusable, screaming racism and ageism at a large collection of very well respected contributors who voted oppose. The last thing we need are unstable and trigger happy admins who easily yield to peer pressure in order to fit in; I continue to believe that he is wholly unsuitable for adminship and that a promotion of this candidate would be reckless disregard for the best interests of Wikipeda. Absolutely not. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - He's a good contributor, no doubt, but what from what I've seen of him as per Question 3, I have my doubts about his maturity when he runs into edit conflicts. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose: throwing out wide-ranging allegations of racism, only three months ago, is still much to soon. Jonathunder 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose A good contributor, but I can not support him for adminship per JoanneB and Essjay. ×Meegs 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, per GT; doesn't seem very thorough in investigating articles nominated for deletion. Just pulling some examples from the last few days: he added throwaway "delete" responses on articles like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Active_citizenship, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T-Shirt_Hell, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Deacon where a "keep" consensus emerged after someone actually did some research, and he apparently didn't realize that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pelodiscus included more than one article (did he read either/both before "voting"?). This was a concern raised in his last RFA, and I don't see that he's really addressed it in substantial fashion. I just wouldn't feel comfortable trusting him with admin powers.-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose As the former anon editor who received this kind of attitude after making a legit edit, I have serious concerns over his behaviour, particularly during stressful times. I have not seen anything to change my mind and I do not think he is cut out for adminship. Soapy Sunshine 20:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    Here is the diff [2] that T.O. reversed. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, per Essjay and JoanneB. User needs to be able to deal with stress better. I hope that he'll take the comments here to heart and try again another time, once he's shown his ability to stay cool under fire and retain his independence better. Snoutwood (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    I want to clarify that that doesn't mean to start opposing RfAs. It means to think for yourself and demonstrate that by providing solid, well-thought-out evidence. Taking stands on things. Not being uncomfortable being the only one to support something that you believe in. These things are worthy of respect. Snoutwood (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  16. Name recognition /= good admin. Length of time /= good admin. Number of edits /= good admin. Erratic/unpredictable behavior /= good admin. This user displays all of these. People saying he "deserves" it should read What adminship is not. Oppose for now. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Tom Marvolo Riddle (^). There's too much emphasis on contributions and not enough on what will actually happen when they get the tools. I agree with Soutwood in using this as an improvement experience. -Mysekurity [m!] 20:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose (mild) Would like to see more depth of comment on AfD's etc - his research doesn't do itself justice. Dlyons493 Talk 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose basically per LV. I really was going to sit this one out because I couldn't bring myself to vote either way, but he put it well enough for me sign on. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Essjay. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Essjay. Accurizer 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per AfDs and Essjay. Kusma (討論) 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per all the above. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  24. Changing to Oppose per Essjay. Yanksox 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I too had been leaning nuetral but such vehemently remarks from Essjay make me believe that Terrence is not ready to be become an admin. SorryGuy 04:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. It appears to me after some very careful consideration that three months is not enough time, in this case, to be confident that Terrence will use the tools responsibly. Admins who react poorly under stress can be a very bad thing for Wikipedia. I mislike his answer to question 3; it describes a conflict in which another user was (apparently) primarily at fault, and then describes another conflict in which Terrence made a personal attack and realized he shouldn't do that anymore. I frankly expect a user who has had severe conflicts and stress to have learned something less superficial than to follow WP:NPA. -- SCZenz 06:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose (changed from neutral) - SCZenz and Essjay have convinced me that I shouldn't be neutral on this. Proto||type 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose admins must, above all else, be able to deal with stress and adversity. I have not seen enough to prove that Terence Ong can do this at all times. - Pureblade | Θ 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per Essjay. Cynical 23:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose per Essjay and others. Aren't I Obscure? 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per Lord Voldemort and SCZenz. I do believe that users should be given the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to rise above past mistakes. That said, three months isn't quite long enough for me to secure that the user has rectified the problems of temperment that plagued the last RfA. Xoloz 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong oppose - as some respected editors before me have mentioned, none of the issues raised during the last RfA have been convincingly resolved, viz. name-calling, mental readiness for the janitorial tasks, and AfD comment behaviour. In addition, although he promises to warn newbies in his answer to question 1, in reality he warns vandals only sporadically despite being reminded to do so. None of his last 40 reverts made with popups were accompanied by warnings. Lastly, [3] seems to indicate an unwillingness to discuss one of his reverts, wiping out the request using popups, no less. (The only mistake the anon made was to place his comment in the wrong place.) All in all, the doubt factor over this user's suitability for the sysop buttons has only increased since his last RfA. Kimchi.sg 09:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. As one of Terence's admin coaches, I was incredibly surprised to see another RfA for him after only 3 months; I happened to stumble across it today. There were serious concerns from the last time around and there hasn't been enough time to address those and show growth. Terence knows policy well, but still has difficulty in applying or interpreting it. Great contributor and will make a wonderful admin in the future. Shell babelfish 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  34. Tony Sidaway 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Not yet. An administrator above all needs to be able to handle stress and stick with the right decision.
  35. Weak Oppose. Like many others to say this, I have found Terence to be a great guy who has has made many fine contributions to wikipedia. However, I do not feel that the position of administrator is the best place for him to serve wikipedia at this time. He has plenty of potential as a future admin (per Shell), but not just yet in my humble opinion. -- Banes 19:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  36. Reluctant oppose. Terence seems like a nice guy, but his comments on AfD and the incivility I see discussed here means that he needs to work on things first. Maybe in a few more months. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  37. Absolutely not. KnowledgeOfSelf was badgered with racism and ageism accusations in Terence's last RFA (I was in IRC at the time). An admin who resorts to baseless allegations regarding a person's opinions is not an admin I want. Ral315 (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose per various comments above. FreplySpang 21:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  39. Weak Oppose Changed vote after seeing several oppose votes. — Nathan (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. I was wavering, but didn't have anything with which I could justify opposing until I saw this. How we deal with vandals, clueless newbies etc. is far more important than how we deal with experienced members, and I see this as an example of newbie-biting. Combined with what has already been said, including a lot of the support votes as well as the oppose, I see an editor who, as an admin, will be much admired by Esperanzans, Wikiproject members and others in the Wikipedia circles he moves in, i.e. those who have already climbed Wikipedia's learning curve. But he is likely to inadvertantly kick some of those who are still climbing off the mountain. Great editor, please keep it up, but not ready for adminship. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose as per Essjay. Pete.Hurd 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support per nom. Aguerriero (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I cannot in good conscience vote support after reading some of the above edits and concerns. For now, oppose.Aguerriero (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose as per Essjay and most of the concerns raised above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Excellent contributor, but seems unlikely to make a good admin at present based on all the above concerns. Shell Kinney's comment (oppose #33) in particular carries a lot of weight with me. --Avenue 12:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose per Essjay. --Zoz (t) 19:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  46. Weak oppose. Most of the best admins, in my opinion, are the ones who explain their actions well. I'm not especially warm to people who fail who explain their rationales at all on AfD, even on particularly contentious AfDs. There were many concerns raised on his last RfA that do not appear to be fully addressed. But as an eventualist, I believe everyone deserves a shot at adminship and Mr. Ong definitely deserves more opportunities (given more time and thought.) Grandmasterka 02:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  47. Strongly oppose. Terence's own behavior since his last RfA and his not so forthcoming answers here make the case against giving him admin power even stronger now than it was before. For three reasons, the same as last time. I won't bother asking the questions; he didn't really answer before, and he hasn't responded to anybody else here. Firstly, he still hasn't apologized to the user he falsely accused of vandalism during the last RfA, and still refuses to even explain why he won't apologize. Second, he refuses to follow himself the standards he wants applied to others. Rather than discussing his own stressed-out misbehaviour, which is well-known, his new response to the question below about behaviour under stress has changed only by going on at greater length about how bad a user he had a dispute was. But Terence's only actions in that dispute seems to have been to make personal attacks against the user and accuser her of bad faith. [4], just the behaviour he complained of. As Sam Blanning pointed out, Terence erases other editor's comments from his talk page without explaining, but complains when others to it to his own. We've got too many admins with double standards for them and their friends on one hand, and the rest of us on the other. Third, since Terence just about always sides with whatever the majority is in any dispute he's involved in, and doesn't show any understanding of why that bothers many of us, I don't think he's given any basis for us to believe that he's got the discretion and judgment admins ought to have. His failure to give significant responses to that issue here is at best uncivil, at worst an admission that he's got no real answer to the problem. VivianDarkbloom 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose - I'm sorry to do this, but it must be done. Oppose because of the diffs identified in this discussion so far. - Richardcavell 23:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose if for no other reason than lack of independent insight and judgement on AfDs as per GT, which I have noticed and found frustrating. It would be better to do more research on fewer items. As it stands, the opinion can't be relied on, although goodwill for the project seems apparent. Tyrenius 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose per diffs provided above. Robert 03:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose - Support. Looks to be a quality editor per Zaxem and dedicated vandalfighter. Problems identified in the last RfA don't appear to be an issue anymore - Peripitus (Talk) 09:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)changing my opinion based on both the diffs shown and with respect to comments by Essjay and a previous admin coach - Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. I don't ever seem to see Terence take any initiative, on any project contribution, ever. It's all 'per nom' on pretty much every AfD vote, and support every RFA. And despite the huge immediate wave of 'supports' from all his fellow Singaporeans (q.v. Siva1979 below), I don't feel comfortable backing him to be an admin. That being said, he hasn't done anything wrong recently ... although what he failed for in his last AFD - a tirade of racism and abuse via IRC aimed at anyone who voted 'oppose' - was only 3 months ago. But as I said then, Wikipedia is not IRC, so I can't in good faith oppose, even after that kind of incivility and childishness. He said himself that "Stress and frustruation makes me do unusual things at some times". Has he changed that much in three months? Can't be sure. Oh yeah, neutral. Proto||type 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Moved to oppose. Proto||type 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Seems like a very good contributer.. but I can't make up my mind on whether he would be a good admin or not --K a s h Talk | email 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per GT, unfortunately. Even today, I'm not confident Terence Ong looks at the articles he votes on. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    AfD is not a vote. --Rory096 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    True, which makes looking at the article all the more important if one is to engage in discussion. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I've noticed Terence around on AfD and I can't say I have any problems with him on that score. But the comments above regarding unfounded allegations of racism and so forth following his previous nom constitute a serious problem for me. Time does heal all wounds, but maturity (regardless of calendar age, which is unimportant) is something that can only develop over a period (much) longer than 3 months. I see it as the key criterion in an RfA. Simply put, not everyone is cut out to be an admin, however great an editor they may be. This is a 'Neutral' rather than 'Oppose' because I am relying on the statements above and have not actually seen the comments in question. If this RfA is tight, my contribution can be taken by the closer as an Oppose. Badgerpatrol 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. I came here intending to support, because Terence is a nice guy and has grown somewhat since his last RfA, but the strong opposition from people I trust a lot suggests that more growth is needed. Still, I cannot oppose. Please do not despair, Terence, but instead take on board some of the input you've been given, work on being more equanamable, and more thoughtful in your comments, and in time adminship will come. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Nice guy but since he plans to do xfD work, the AfD commentary is rather sparse. I can't hold comments made on another medium three months ago against him per se, but their apparent content is concerning as well. Opabinia regalis 04:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. This is a shame, as I said last time that if Terence ever came up again I would support. However, reading this RFA discussion has made doubt creep into my mind; hence the neutral. Undoubtedly a prolific and active user, but some of the above makes me think maybe not admin material at the moment. Batmanand | Talk 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I really want to vote Support, but I feel he needs to mature as a person before he is given the sysop tools (which I'm sure he will someday). I think Terrence is a fine editor and a great wikipedian, but adminship isn't a reward. --Eivindt@c 03:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral --lightdarkness (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Username Terence_Ong
Total edits 11226
Distinct pages edited 7287
Average edits/page 1.541
First edit 11:44, January 28, 2005

(main) 4097
Talk 323
User 706
User talk 833
Image 22
MediaWiki talk 1
Template 126
Template talk 7
Category 19
Category talk 2
Wikipedia 4953
Wikipedia talk 137

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: I will help to close xFDs (AFDs, TFDs, MFDs, CFDs, IFDs and RFDs) as well as proposed deletions, despite I don't work at CFDs, IFDs and RFDs most of the time. I will still participate actively in xFDs. Another thing I will help with is vandal fighting, the vandalism rate on Wikipedia is high and is shocking to see some pages not reverted on sight even after a few hours. I will improve the efficiency of reverting vandalism and help block persistent vandals if they vandalise after several warnings. I will also help protect or semi-protect articles that have been vandalised continuously or unprotect after a few days. Several encyclopaedic articles get nominated for deletion either AFD or proposed deletion due to the article unwikified or in bad shape. These articles needs serious cleanup and expansion as soon as possible. A number of articles have been nominated for speedy deletion, but they do not meet any speedy deletion criteria or if they do, . If not, I will bring it up to AFD or its respective places for deletion. Another thing is I do see vandals (anons or not), attack/ imposter usernames and abusive sockpuppets, I am helpless in this situation as I cannot block this users. I will also deal with trolls who create trouble throughout the encyclopedia. They disrupt the editing proccess of a Wiki and I do not tolerate vandals and trolls. However, in some cases, they are clueless newbies testing pages, I will give them test warnings and ask them to try the sandbox.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: NTUC FairPrice, Anglo-Chinese School (International), Singapore general election, 2006, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and Light Rapid Transit (Singapore). The first two articles I mentioned are articles I created from scratch. These articles are not fantastic at all, neither did they had any honourable mention. However, it is one of the better articles I wrote. Without saying, there have been changes to the article which I definitely do not mind since it is a Wiki. Currently, the content and quality is satisfactory, and I'm rather contented with it. When Singapore had its elections last month, I helped update the article and write the content, covering the election as much as possible. Though not tidied up yet, I am still proud of it as it also appeared in the "In the News" section of the Main Page. Also, I helped to write the articles for almost every constituency, though two are still not written. They are mainly stubs and therefore is nothing to be proud of. I did helped in Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) which is a featured article despite I did not helped much. 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). In the near future, I plan to pay more attention to LRT and the elections page, and hopefully reach good article status.
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: Not too long ago, I was involved in an arbitration case of Monicasude's conduct. Six months ago when Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) was a featured article candidate which he objected. Later, he changed the vote to strong object citing the article was not neutral. Monicasude refused to accept the concensus and tries to find trouble with the article. It was promoted to a featured article eventually and made claims that the article contained "weasel words" and it was a POV article. He added tags, but it was reverted, he therefore added another tag this time. Still, it was reverted, causing a short edit war but it stopped. Also, I suggested him to archive his talk page. Instead, my comments were blanked thrice without a reason. Another user filed a RFC against him for his questionable conduct. Monicasdude did not take his RFC seriously and remained uncivil. Several months later, an arbitration case followed the RFC and he was placed on a civility parole for one year. This case involved ten users which includes his conduct at AFDs, I used to see him there until the arbitration case. Another time was with a group of members from oWikiProject Airports and WikiProject Airlines. The Airport WikiProject people wanted a standard format for airlines and their destinations in a standard format. However, the Singapore Changi Airport article was one was in a table. A standardisation took place and a there was a lengthy dispute for quite some time. I then made a personal attack at two of its members without realising it was against it when I was still unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Since then, I've learnt not to make personal attacks on anyone and remain civil at all times. Around the same period, another editor from sister WikiProject Airlines. A Singaporean editor and I had a dispute over Singapore Airlines subpages. Some of this sub-pages doesn't exist for most airlines and the user sent the article for AFD. As a result, 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 violated Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


The above adminship 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.