Meta:Requests for adminship/NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 3

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 22:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I have been active on Meta for a while, and adminship would be useful. I intend to use it primarily for editing abuse filters and other day-to-day local work (RfDs, speedies, edit requests, etc.), as well as handling vandals. I would like to help maintaining gadgets as well, and thus I'm also requesting interface adminship. I have read WM:A/WM:IA and have 2FA enabled.

The bulk of my contributions here are reverts and requests. Occasionally I improve templates and modules. Most of my edits and requests have been non-controversial, though several are not (a few off the top of my head: 1, 2, 3). I try to not to repeat the same mistakes.

I failed two RfAs, both in 2022: the first one for inexperience and edit warring concerns, and the second for inappropriate behaviour. I no longer edit war and will never do so again. As for the joke, it was admittedly in bad taste, for which I apologize. I still am not an admin on any wiki, however.

Thanks for your consideration. Please feel free to ask any questions. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is effectively a co-nomination between me and NDKDD. After exchanging a few conversations with them off-wiki, I can safely say that they are trusted enough to maintain this project (in handling vandals/LTAs, deleting off-topic pages and the like), they are an abuse filter editor on the Vietnamese Wikipedia (which shows they are familiar with the AbuseFilter extension), and I have implemented several abuse filter and page protection requests from them, via RFH. Therefore, I

endorse this nomination. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support NDKDD has been active enough on Meta, trusted user. --Stïnger （会話） 23:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plutus^{💬 🎄} — Fortune favours the curious 01:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for volunteering! – DreamRimmer ■ 01:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Saroj (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 04:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear needs. Thanks for volunteering! 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 04:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although you are close to passing it and the closing time is over, I cannot support this because I personally do not feel safe, thank you. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 04:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbiruzzaman: Not trying to bludgeon the discussion, but could you explain why you do[es] not feel safe? If there is something I can do better, then I would like to know what that is. If you don't want to reply here, you can also send me an email or DM me on Discord. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closing time has already passed, so I don't believe my !vote change will have any effect. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 18:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbiruzzaman: That's not true. A RfA may last for longer than seven days. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Barras talk 12:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Infinite0694 (Talk) 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 05:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 10:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Active on deleteme and reporting. --Uncitoyen^talk 00:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --V0lkanic (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support—RH🦋 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support shb (t • c) 12:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 12:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --A.Savin (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin, what's with the objection? It does not make any sense. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is it's because of this on Commons (see previous nomination) – though would still be good to get a reply from Alex. //shb (t • c) 23:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Of course you may always argue that an old comment isn't carved in stone and a user may grow up etc.pp., and that's true to some extent. But c'mon man -- I've lost my Commons adminship unlawfully and without several 10-12 years old difflinks this bullying campaign would not ever have had enough substance to proceed, so yeah, either we ALL follow Common sense (which I clearly would prefer, if I had the choice), or ... be it as usual. --A.Savin (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: I'd like to hear your more detailed thoughts on this. Regards, 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 06:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@기나ㅏㄴ: As I said in my statement, I regret the action and offer my apology; I believe I now know better. If A.Savin feels that still isn't enough, then he is entitled to his !vote, and I appreciate his just as I do everyone else's. Let me know if that's not what you mean. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that since the same reason that prevented the previous request from passing was raised again as an oppose, it would be helpful for you to provide a clearer response once more. Thank you for your response. 𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 10:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, they are already a trusted user and I see a good response for concerns above. VERITAS

SAPIENTIAE 11:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congrats, friend. Plantaest (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support and ASavin's opposition is ridiculous in my opinion. It does no good to assume something bad just because someone make a comment related to Hitler (which in my opinion was misinterpreted, and one can easily read it in a way that isn't offensive). Leaderboard (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC) [EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that their comment was correct or appropriate, but more that it's an issue (i.e, a "wording slip") that's easy to fix. It is also important to note that the person who opposed has a history of unnecessarily making inflammatory comments (not specifically about this issue), and I wrote the above comment keeping that in mind) Leaderboard (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)][reply]

Done, clear consensus. --M/ (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2025 (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.