Meta:Requests for adminship/NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk • contribs • deleted user contributions • logs • block log • abuse log • CentralAuth • stalktoy) Bureaucrats: user rights management.

Not ending before 11 July 2022 13:04 (UTC)

Hi. I have been active here for a few months and I think it's time for me to request for adminship again (see my first (unsuccessful) RfA here). Most of my work on Meta are reverting/reporting vandalism, tagging pages for deletion, and cleaning up templates. I submitted multiple edit requests to high-risk templates, most of which were fulfilled (the rest pending), and Lua-ified a couple of templates.

Having never been a sysop on non-test wikis, I am unfamiliar with, to name a few, title/spam blacklist and abuse filters. Regardless, I believe that one can always learn new things, and that I do have a clue of areas where I'm clueless and may need help from fellow admins. My account has 2FA enabled. Thanks for your consideration. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support trusted user, admin rights on Meta will be of great use for him fighting vandalism. --Johannnes89 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{s}}~~ --Victor Trevor (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hasley. I am not willing to support a user who has not been selected as an administrator by their home wiki community. Thanks for your contributions. --Victor Trevor (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, running soon after a failed RfA on viwiki (which was filed right after their first meta candidacy, with no mention of it here) shows unsuitability for this role. Repeated edit warring with vandals is also not good. Sgd. —Hasley 15:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not mentioning it. This should not and never be an excusation, but I failed partly because of internal problems. As for the edit war, it was purely my fault. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted user. AlPaD (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hasley. It's too soon since the last request, also there are several areas where there is clear lack of experience.-BRP^ever 16:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BRPever: As I said, I believe in one's ability to learn. Would you mind letting me know what they are, other than blacklists and filters, and how can I learn anything in those areas as a non-admin? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe that. That being said, adminship is all about trust, and I don't find much change from the request last time. This request came too soon (exactly after 3 months) and there have been concern about actions in between. I have also noticed requests like this where several pages created by many different users were requested for deletion at GSR without local consensus. These all show that there is clear need of experience in general. BRP^ever 12:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You're prone to working on tasks that creates unnecessary work for others and clogs existing processes. This includes clerking pages that you should not be clerking (and do not know enough to clerk), unnecessary GSR and SRG requests, etc. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my previous vote on this: NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh is clearly trusted and experienced. Seeing their anti-vandalism work, I think the tools would certainly be useful to them and I don't doubt their competence in that area. —Svārtava (t/u) • 03:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral like last time --Ameisenigel (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing has changed since the previous run -FASTILY 01:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not on Meta, not on Wikipedia, not on Commons, not now, not in 6 months, not in 26 years. Thanks --A.Savin (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Also, in my opinion, too soon since last RFA. Edit: In adition: edit warring and (according to the previous vote) saying "Just block the bad guy" when reverting a vandal. That just doesn't look right to me. L10nM4st3r (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit count may be impressive but the above outweighs edit count, which means very little to me anyway. Quality not quantity, after all. L10nM4st3r (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Edit count is not a measure of experience or work done. Vermont 🐿️ (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Not sure why this is brought up in the first place. As Vermont says, there is nothing to outweigh. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why it means very little to me. L10nM4st3r (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per A. Savin and this. It seems to me like a lot of perm seeking with nothing to merit said perms. Praxidicae (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin and Praxidicae --MeganB... _{…till the end} 07:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose_𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 15:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per recent failed RFA and per A. Savin --DannyS712 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Hasley, I also think you are in hurry (just an example from bnwiki), stay here and overcome the mistakes and inexperience in you. Although I don't think you have hat-collecting attitude, but we can't ignore your own community concerns. Thanks for your contribution —MdsShakil (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not this time unfortunately; would encourage waiting for a few months, and crucially not applying for rights anywhere on the Wikimedia network. This can include taking a break. That being said, I don't know how A. Savin's comment has anything to do with the adminship request (even after looking at that link) - that comment looks off-topic to me and I can't see any issue with the OP's comments there. Leaderboard (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moral one due to the candidate many improvements efforts here. I would however think this is too fast, and the candidate should have perm-sysop access somewhere before applying unless there are clear extenuating circumstances (like very very experienced / competent in meta work - i.e. work that is almost perfect here on meta on a significant scale). In addition, given that meta sysops tend to need to act on conduct issues here, the comment as quoted as A. Savin doesn't give me confidence that the candidate can carry out this role well. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The link that A.Savin mentioned is really concerning. The recently-failed viwikipedia and meta RFA doesn't convince me either. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done this request is unsuccessful. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.