Wikipedia:Editor review/Terence Ong 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Terence Ong

Terence Ong (talk • contribs) I am an editor for more than 21 months since my first edit on 28 January 2005 with over 13,000 edits I guess. For those who want to know my activities, I mainly do article writing, upload images to Wikimedia Commons, couple of xFDs, vandal fighting and help to select for good admins at RFAs. I had three unsuccessul RFAs, the first I declined due to inexperience. I had some conflict on IRC as well as on Wikipedia itself, I would want some comments on my editing pattern, edits, quality of argument on xFDs, and other comments. Please also tell me on ways how I can improve myself e.g. writing skills, attitude, admin chores etc. Thank you. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

• Hey buddy. I've seen your name around Wikipedia; you're quite involved here in the community and it's my pleasure to review you.

Let me start off by saying that your two RfA's are your best sources for criticism and feedback about your work on the encyclopedia, which is probably why you haven't received responses to this Editor Review. Taking the concerns that the community expressed in those RfA's to heart is your best way to improve your contributions to the encyclopedia and to earn the confidence and trust of the !voters in RfA. In particular, actively try to address concerns raised in strong oppose votes, which in your case seems to be your maturity.

Basic common sense has to prevail on this issue. Always do your best to work with other editors in good faith, and strive to understand other people and their points of view. Other editors, particularly established and experienced ones, can probably offer the best insight of anybody on what you can do to improve the encyclopedia, and their opinions should be respected.

With that said, and after pouring over a thousand of your edits and your talk pages, I really don't have any concerns about maturity at this point. You seem to interact fairly well with other users, and I don't see any incidents in your recent edit history. In addition, nine months have passed since the strong accusations of immaturity in your first RfA, which is plenty of time to remedy that sort of thing.

Anyway, since I assume you'll want to run for RfA again at some point in the future, let me give you my feedback on areas I consider important for an admin (more info on that here).

Edit Count - The wannabe Kate tool is down right now, but your userboxes say 12,000 and I believe it. You have made an amazing number of contributions to our encyclopedia, more than many many other editors. In addition, a lot of these are in admin-related tasks (AfD and RfA). I also see a good number of project edits on Singapore-related topics, and participation in the Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board. Very diverse edit history with a high number of quality edits. I see no problems here.

Activity - You have been active for over a year and are constantly editing. Even two failed RfA's haven't scared you away from Wikipedia; in fact, your editing is as prolific as ever. The volume of comments your talk page receives is testament to your activity, particularly in RfA's.

Little Details - Non-obnoxious sig? Check. Wiki e-mail? Check. Awesome userpage? Check plus; I like it a lot. Edit summaries? Check. Had no trouble browsing your contribs.

Behavior - Looks fine, and has significantly improved since previous RfA's. Hopefully the community will have more confidence in you if and when you run again.

Motivations - Seems pretty clear that you enjoy editing Wikipedia in general and are more than willing to do admin-related tasks and janitorial work. Most of your recent edits fall into this category. Don't see any problems here.

RfA Conduct - Poor in the first one. Fine in the second one. I don't anticipate problems here.

Article Contributions - Prolific. You've created over a hundred articles and are a frequent editor of Singapore-related articles. I don't think anybody can fault you here. ;)

RC Patrol - I don't know if you do RC patrol or just have a bunch of articles on your watchlist, but you definitely do vandal fighting. In addition, concerns about the use of warning templates appear to have been cleared up.

New Page Patrol - I didn't see any of this, but participation in AfD is good enough for me. Of course, it's always hard to tell if a user is doing this anyway, because articles tagged as speedy deletions are... well... speedied. ;)

Project Participation - Exemplary. You're heavily involved on the Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board and are involved in planning a meet-up. You've manually assessed hundreds of Singapore-related articles, placing ratings on talk pages. Keep up the good work! Also an active member of Esperanza.

Admin Pages - Lots of participatin in AfD. You may want to consider participation in other areas as well, to round out your resume. Besides, I imagine AfD gets old after awhile... you were an active AfD participant six months ago in your second RfA!

Images - Another area where you've gone above and beyond the call of duty. Your photos are extremely high-quality and you've managed to amass quite a few of them. Again, great work!

Policy - After a year of contributions and frequent participation in AfD's, I think you've got this down. RfA participation has probably also contributed to this area.

And that pretty much covers it bro. One final thing I'd like to add... take concerns by admins about your account security very seriously. Secure your account, and assure admins who have commented on your talk page that this will never happen again. This could be a significant barrier to adminship if left unresolved; admin tools are too powerful to be misused as part of a prank by your friends.

Best of luck in any future RfA's, and enjoy your WikiBreak (hahaha, you're addicted man, you're supposed to be gone until after the holidays yet you've managed to rack up like 500 edits in the last week!) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm actually surpsied that a onsensus hadn't been reached on the Rfa, I'd have supported you easily. Your edit count is insane based on how long you've been here. I would have liked to see more namespace edits (or at least more of those than wikipedia edits, but you do have a lot of both). Overall I see you a lot on the AfD pages, you're definitely helpful there. Overall i can't find any serious problems with you at all. I'll look harder to find some if you want :P --Wizardman 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

Questions

1. Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

   A: Singapore 2006, Central Sikh Temple, Singapore general election, 2006, National Museum of Singapore. I created all the three pages except the election page. Singapore 2006 and Singapore general election, 2006 were articles that I helped to write a significant amount of content and appeared at the In the news section of the Main Page. Singapore 2006 was an international event and it was a very important event and I felt that I should try my very best to help out with the article, since it was held in my homeland. This article is not a fantastic article, but I felt proud when I edited this article and it appeared on the Main Page. For Central Sikh Temple, it received a DYK mention which is my only one as of now. I strongly believe that the encyclopedia should have sufficient coverage of every part of the world, and every topic an encyclopedia has. In the elections page, I've helped with quite a lot of content, though its not fully done yet. I've created every constituency (current), though two was actually a total rewrite. For the museum article, I took quite a long time to have enough information in my hands before having the final version. This was a mammoth task and I took like a week to write the article, I plan to do more work on it and bring it to GA if possible. I've also helped with articles such as Light Rapid Transit (Singapore) which I did a massive cleanup, and hope to style it after Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). I've edited the latter and improved the quality in a way and its sub-pages as well. I hope to work more on article writing, and to have a better coverage of articles on Wikipedia, with more honourable mentions. For a list, see here.

2. 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: Recently, I was involved in a mass Singapore shopping mall AFDs, I had a small conflict with User:Nehwyn and several editors about malls being notable and there was quite a heated debate here. I decided to keep my cool and assume good faith, but arguing my point that the couple of malls sent for AFD and some were nominated for PROD, that these malls definitely meet the notability criteria. I try not to get angry easily and will keep cool usually. I had conflicts with User:Monicasdude and was involved in the arbitration case due to unacceptable conduct. He has since left Wikipedia, due to the parole given in the end. It all started in December 2005, when current featured article Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) went on FAC and he objected. There was a long dispute over his crticisms and I myself also debated with him over the article. Later, he strongly objected to it, claiming the article was not modified as he suggested, and was not neutral, and kept on commenting on the article, arguing his points. There was a lengthy dispute at my talk page, and he kept on removing my comments from his talk page as I told him to archive his talk page. My comments were blanked thrice without any reason. An admin had to interfere into our dispute. By the time it was promoted to FA status, he made claims adding tags saying the article did not follow the NPOV policy and contained "weasel words". There was a mini edit war, but it stopped. An RFC was filed against him for his behaviour and did not take his RFC seriously, and continued with his uncivil conduct. An arbitration case was filed against him, and I was one of the ten users involved in it. It included his conduct at AFDs, which I always saw his comments on the AFDs. I was involved in it and suggested several enforcements to the RFAr case. Another time was a group of members from the Airline and Airport WikiProject, but it has since cleared. The people at the Airport WikiProject wanted a standard format for airlines and their destinations in a normal format. However, Singapore Changi Airport had a table format, and a standardisation took place and there was a lengthy argument on the style of the article. As I was not very familiar with things back then, I made a personal attack at two of the members without realising it was against policy. I then remained civil and not to make any personal attacks anymore. Months later, I had a dispute with an Airline Wikiproject editor over Singapore Airlines subpages, several Singaporean editors also disputed on the content. 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.