Jump to content

Requests for comment/Drama created by the only active administrator of viwikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. no proposal, no consensus, apparently conversation has reached an end  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proof regarding to the issue[edit]


Issues with TUIBAJAVE's "research centers"[edit]

  1. False accusation against another member in vi:Thành viên:TUIBAJAVE/Trung tâm nghiên cứu xung đột/Tứ đại chiến dịch của Mặt Nạ đại vương: "Alphama đã triển khai Chiến lược Vây cánh hay còn gọi là Cặm cọc, đưa Ngomanh123 lên nắm quyền, để tạo thêm vây cánh" (Alphama used a technique known as Wing grow, by promoting Ngomanh123 so this person can side up with him). This is completely proofless, and its purpose is simply to attack Alphama, who Khả Vân considers their "enemy".
  2. In vi:Thành viên:TUIBAJAVE/Trung tâm nghiên cứu xung đột/Chiến tranh Thusinhviet – Vuhoangsonhn: "Thusinhviet có đồng minh một bên, phía bên kia Alphama hỗ trợ Vuhoangsonhn. (Thusinhviet has a partner, while Alphama back Vuhoangsonhn up). The original conflict was simply the disagreement about article title, but Khả Vân made it a fight between those users.
  3. vi:Thành viên:TUIBAJAVE/Trung tâm nghiên cứu lịch sử quan hệ cộng đồng Wikipedia/Chu kỳ quyền lực đương đại: Thời đại Nguyentrongphu: In this page, they describing Nguyentrongphu during the administratorship, but the wordings were biasely praising, with sections like "Đặc điểm quyền lực" (characteristics of power), "Cơ sở quyền lực" (foundation of power).
  4. Ôi, TuanUt giống như một ông già Nhật chết theo kiểu Kodokushi (cái chết cô độc) mà cả khu phố chả ai biết. Thật thảm thương cho TuanUt, khi chẳng ai quan tâm, ngoài người mà chính y thù hận. --> Oh, TuanUt is now no different from a Japanese old man who ended up going thorugh a Kodokushi (lonely death), which no one in the area knew. How piteous when no one actually cares, except the one that he hated. [6]
  5. Alphama không tôn trọng sự đa dạng động cơ đóng góp của các thành viên, thứ hai, tự cho mình cái quyền phê phán người khác. --> Alphama does not respect the variety of the movitations to contribute to, giving himself the right to criticize others. [7]
  6. Doxing, revealing user information [8]
  7. Cuộc phản công tự vệ này tuy ngắn ngày nhưng ác liệt đã giáng trả cho Vịt Quắc Sả những đòn đích đáng. Là cái bợp tay xớn vào chủ nghĩa quân phiệt hiếu chiến Vịt Quắc Sả. --> The self-defense attack, short but destructive, gave Vịt Quắc Sả (referring to me), a suitable revenge. It's a slap to the person's militarism and warmongering. [9]
It's became the cause of litigation after you (a sockpuppets) were banned from Vietnam.wikipedia and banned from Common. Oh my god TUIBAJAVE (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and here, other main sockpuppet of Đại Việt quốc Wo hen xi huan bing qi lin, with his menace TUIBAJAVE (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now, banned from English.wikipedia. Oh my god TUIBAJAVE (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At last, Global block for a super sockpuppets. TUIBAJAVE (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: this sockpuppet Đại Việt quốc try use Meta Wikimedia's admin to block anybody he wants. He have been a long history use sockpuppets to attack a lot of user in Vietnam Wikipedia. A sockpuppets want to use Meta Wikimedia's admin for his revenge (sorry my english not good) TUIBAJAVE (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue[edit]

The issue I would like to describe involves Nguyentrongphu and TUIBAJAVE (formerly Khả Vân Đại Hãn). Both are members of the Vietnamese Wikipedia, the former is currently the only active administrator in the project, and the latter is a disrupting account.

In the past year, Khả Vân has been creating multiple username-space pages labeled as "Trung tâm nghiên cứu xung đột" (Conflict Research Center), "Trung tâm nghiên cứu lịch sử quan hệ cộng đồng Wikipedia" (Wikipedian Relationships History Research Center). As the name suggests, this user wanted to summarize and comment on the conflicts between users that they happened to run into accross the project. However, unfortunately, things went too far when the comments he made in those pages were completely biased, to the point that they became personal attacks statements. See "Issues with TUIBAJAVE's "research centers"" above for more details.

Overall, it can be seen that the pages clearly violated vi:WP:KHONGBLOG (the Vietnamese version of en:WP:NOTBLOG) with the addition of several false accusations/personal attacks. However, when I brought up this issue at vi:Wikipedia:Tin nhắn cho bảo quản viên/Lưu 2023 3#Các trung tâm nghiên cứu xung đột của Khả Vân Đại Hãn, Nguyentrongphu concluded that it does not violate those, the reason given was because vi:WP:KHONGBLOG was simply a translatation from en:WP:NOTBLOG, and the viwikipedia editors had not had any discussion to reach a consensus about it yet. Therefore, it is not a valid viwikipedia policy. This is the most ridiculous reason I had ever heard, because prior to that, countless of pages had been deleted according to vi:WP:KHONGBLOG. When I requested for another administrator to take a look at this, the reply I got was: "Bên en, câu đó còn đồng thuận rồi, còn bên Vi thì chưa, rõ ràng chưa? Bạn muốn đợi 1 BQV khác giải quyết à? Chúc bạn đợi tới năm sau. Không có đồng thuận thì đừng hòng mà xóa. Thế nhé, adios! (translating to "In enwp, the editor had reached a consensus on it, but not on viwp, clear enough? So you want another administrator to reconsider it? Then wait until next year. With any consensus, forget about having those pages deleted. Let it be, adios!"). Regarding the tone of this reply, I'm gonna let you decide and comment on it.

Following that reply, I was blocked due to being a sock, who are not allowed a clean start. Regarding this block, I have no comment at all because it was according to the rules (though it sounds quite funny when this administrator himself broke the rules as mentioned above). Later I had an email exchange with Nguyentrongphu, which is the main thing I would like to report. In that email, he admitted that he was biased when it comes to issue with Khả Vân Đại Hãn, the reason given was "Kill-Vearn mà nổi điên lên phá hoại Wikipedia mấy tháng trời thì rất mệt. Tôi cũng ngại cấm cậu ta trừ phi bất đắc dĩ. Kill-Vearn là trường hợp đặc biệt duy nhất thôi chứ mấy tv làm lại từ đầu bị phát hiện thì đa số đều bị cấm." (translating to "If Kill-Vearn goes crazy and vandalize wikipedia for months, it would be really tiring to clean up after him. I also try not to block him unless it's unavoidable. Kill-Vearn is the only sockpuppet account who was allowed a clean start, others would be blocked if I notice.") See the full conversation that I captured in this Imgur post. Regarding TUIBAJAVE/Khả Vân Đại Hãn being a sockpuppet of Kill-Vearn (talk · contribs), please see this report for more details.

that funny, how can you translate "trường hợp đặc biệt duy nhất" to "only sockpuppet account". Stop lie, please TUIBAJAVE (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Đại Việt quốc gave the wrong translation. too bad. you have a good english but you gave the wrong translation. what's your intention? TUIBAJAVE (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding that Facebook post, Nguyentrongphu offered to make it up to me by granting the new account I have in the future all of the rights I had before being blocked, and I should not discuss TUIBAJAVE's pages anymore. This is clearly a very serious power abuse, and the problem raised here is: Since he abused his powers and secretly exchanged email with me to "make up" for that, there must be hundreds of other similar emails, as nothing guarantees that it was the only time he was untruthful. Other possibilities would be Nguyentrongphu using emails to manipulate discussions, and even votes in the project.

To summarize, Nguyentrongphu is the current active administrator in vi-wp, and I see a lot signs of power abuse. TUIBAJAVE/Khả Vân Đại Hãn is in fact a sockpuppet, and currently still making disruptive edits with those misleading user-space articles. However, Nguyentrongphu is biased when it comes to this account and will tolerate every of their violations (unless unavoidable, as mentioned above). Đại Việt quốc (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alphama: Perhaps you can explain this somewhat clearer, as someone might not fully understand it. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Comment I departed from viwiki a year ago, and I am no longer inclined to involve myself in such conflicts. Nevertheless, I concur that numerous articles violated the NOTBLOG policies, and they can all be located here. Some articles even disclosed users' private information and contained offensive content, as exemplified by Vokaanhduy (translated to English for clarity). Clearly, this contravenes the Universal Code of Conduct. The viwiki sysop mentioned (Nguyentrongphu) faced a block on enwiki; you can verify the details here. The second individual identified himself/herself as Kill-Vearn here, with a global block. P.S.: I'm currently on vacation, which marks the limited information I can share. This might be the final instance of me bringing this up, as I wish to avoid any pursuit from these individuals.  A l p h a m a  Talk 10:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alphama : The second individual identified himself/herself as Kill-Vearn here, with a global block why you and Đại Việt quốc want to destroy me, after AmandaNP'decide everything at March 2023. For what. maybe for Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Alphama with 26 vote take you down, and Nguyentrongphu open Requests for de-adminship for you. Right? oh, i see, now you want revenge me, oh, oh...TUIBAJAVE (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please get straight to the main idea. Nobody harms you here. Your articles violated the rules outlined in both NOTBLOG and the Universal Code of Conduct, which the community painstakingly developed over the years. We all must avoid creating any content that includes offensive content. Not only that, you also reveal people name, level of education, occupation, etc. This is very BAD and unbearable.  A l p h a m a  Talk 05:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are liar. Every newspapers in Vietnam post about user Vokaanhduy. Everyone know that thing. Stop your lie, You are a man in Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Alphama with 26 vote take you down. Now you want make a revenge, right? TUIBAJAVE (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you mentioned Vokaanhduy [10]:
"Những gì mà thành viên Duy đáng kính để lại không chỉ là một bãi rác hôi thối kinh tởm, hàng trăm bài viết kém chất lượng của một tài năng giả tạo, mà còn là sự hủ bại về giá trị sống, đạo đức mà một con người thật sự và đúng nghĩa lẽ ra không nên làm."
What the respected member Duy left behind was not only a disgusting, stinking landfill, hundreds of low-quality articles by a fake talent, but also the corruption of life values and ethics that a real and true people should not have done it.  A l p h a m a  Talk 05:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh my god, so exaggeration, TUIBAJAVE (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tell me, how many users in Vietnam Wikipedia you have been banishment, the page Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Alphama to understand you clearly TUIBAJAVE (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I want is to delete those articles and do it right. We are Wikipedians and we must comply to the Wikipedia policies.  A l p h a m a  Talk 05:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think you good man. You used to an admin in Vietnam wikipedia, but, you attack me and other users in your articles, in many page. ex: Lời nguyền Wikipedia. you writing me, and other users: sick man. and more. how do you feel that. All Vietnam wikipedia know you are a liar, and they have a take you down your power Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Alphama. look TUIBAJAVE (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and, you used to reveal my name on internet. and told me that you could use Vietnam government do anything to me. So that, i never vote at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Alphama why not you stop TUIBAJAVE (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a admin lost power told about true law, right?. I will remember that thing you do forever, good TUIBAJAVE (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Alphama was desysoped last year due to corruption charge. Google translation can give you a gist of it. Everything above is false accusations. My block in English Wikipedia is irrelevant here. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that your indefinite block on enwiki for being labeled a "Holocaust enthusiast" is irrelevant to this case. Similarly, my removal of administrative privileges is the same. The ESEAP conference has collectively endorsed my actions, emphasizing the principle that any user group has the prerogative to welcome and engage contributors to Wikimedia projects. Embracing and facilitating participation to Wikimedia projects is our mission, and I have consistently affirmed this commitment. Let back to the case; it is very clear those articles should not be written since they heavily broke Wikimedia policies and increased the conflicts between users. Sadly, you support those according to the pieces of evidence above. Please revise the Wikipedia policies and make the right decision.  A l p h a m a  Talk 05:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we have a lot of other admins ok? Ask one of them to delete those pages if you have a problem with it. Nobody cares because it's not important and probably does not violate anything. I never said I support them. I said I was neutral. I didn't want to get involved into another pointless "drama" and fight. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know it's irrelevant, but you have to bring it up? I don't care about ESEAP endorsing you. The Vietnamese Wikipedia community has spoken loud and clear that we disapproved your actions by removing your sysop tool. You brought a real life friend to ESEAP conference with 0 edit to Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project (ESEAP paid all expenses for his real life friend). Nguyentrongphu (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody just need to read Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Alphama to understand you clearly TUIBAJAVE (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment Nguyentrongphu is actually Trongphu (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked in en-Wikipedia for disrupting edits. He then asked for an unblocked, which was granted and promised not to edit there again. But then came back there with another account (current one) and ended up being blocked again. Does this also count as some kind of long-term abuse? If it does, then I guess the "term" here is longer then many users here. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my block in English is irrelevant here. You've been blocked in 3 projects (Vietnamese Wikipedia, English Wikipedia and Commons) with dozens of confirmed socks. I have never used sock since 2008. Trongphu and Nguyentrongphu are 1 account in Vietnamese Wikipedia. It was split into 2 different account in English Wikipedia because the global account merging happened. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant also. This topic is about your offensive articles and the actions that support them.  A l p h a m a  Talk 05:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so, you have a long history about banishment and offense a lot of users in Vietnam wikipedia. and now want true law. do not lie TUIBAJAVE (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TUIBAJAVE also had some problems of personal attacks, but I think (her) essays does not have significant problems. JrandWP (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment sorry my English not good:
  • First, you told me "disrupting account", everybody can check here Yêu cầu kiểm định tài khoản/Đại Việt quốc (that mean: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Đại Việt quốc). Đại Việt quốc use sockpuppets to attack, and make fake consensus, and he have a long history about threat in Vietnamese Wikipedia. He told will stab me in real life.
  • Second, Steward AmandaNP denies all accusations from Đại Việt quốc to destroy me. (at Steward requests/Global: Global lock for Khả Vân Đại Hãn, in 31 March 2023).
  • Third, The Vietnamese Wikipedia community knows me and welcomed me back and I have served for the past 2 years
  • 4), Đại Việt quốc use Vietnam government make a threat to me (TUIBAJAVE Thức đêm thức hôm viết luôn bé hỉ... Đúng là được cho phép dùng tên thật rồi có khác ha :))))) Hôm nay ta đánh giá rất cao và chính thức khuyến khích bé cứ viết nhiều, càng nhiều vô càng tốt á. Vì một nguồn tin đã cho ta biết là cả cái trang vi-wiki bị chính quyền đưa vào danh sách cam, ngang hàng mấy trang phản động cấp 2 vì các bài viết về biển đảo rồi. Để sau này có dịp người ta đào sâu hơn sẽ lòi ra thêm đây là một trang diễn đàn độc hại nữa thì ú... ta nói nó đã gì đâu. Ta xin thoái lui để có gì ngày đó đến ta cũng đã mất dấu lâu rồi, không sợ liên lụy nữa. Bé cứ ở lại viết tiếp đi nhá, viết càng nhiều sau này có gì người ta điều tra càng có nhiều điều nói lên lắm đó) ([11])<< Will we check 阮先生,瘾君子 sockpuppet of Đại Việt quốc and block him? right? >>
  • 5), Đại Việt quốc recognize himself is a sockpuppet at here: He talk "con rối này (tôi)".
  • 6), Đại Việt quốc told me that him accept: I can write everything ("thích viết gì thì cứ viết") at here
  • 7), I'm just a man Wikipedia:Clean start, I repair the first time I join wikipedia, that time I look like a kid. yeah, today i'm grow into a real man. I'm so happy when Steward AmandaNP told: "This user is basically just a viwiki editor". i'm so happy during day, all week, like "happy to meet God".
  • 8), Đại Việt quốc use a sockpuppet to attack Nguyentrongphu, its not first time. the new at here<< Will we check NhungPhi2511, sockpuppet of Đại Việt quốc and block him? right? >>
  • 9), Đại Việt quốc have a "declaration of hatred forever", to Nguyentrongphu, forever. He follow a real war
  • 10), Đại Việt quốc use admin. DHN (in Vi.wikipedia) to block me (30/03/2023). After that, he try use Steward. AmandaNP to block me (31/03/2023). They refuse. And after that, he try again use admin. Herbythyme (in Common) to block me, but fail. He never stop but I do nothing to him. He alway found the way to extirpation me, use every admin like tool to serves the his purpose

sorry about my English, because its not good.

@Đại Việt quốc: I told you again, forever and one time: i'm not puppet, i'm not disrupting account. Do not told that during all day, any more. OK? I'm just a begin man, re-begin everything.

TUIBAJAVE (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the sockpuppets of Kill-Vearn that vandalized vi-Wikipedia for months, see vi:Thể loại:Tài khoản con rối của Rối Chúa. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sockpuppets of Đại Việt quốc here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChanComThemPho
This is a warning: Do not make false accusations. The en-Wikipedia never claimed that me (Đại Việt quốc) is a sockpuppet of those accounts, and in fact I have never been blocked in en-Wikipedia. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BIG lie. Your old sock GiaoThongVN was confirmed to be your sock in Vietnamese Wikipedia. You stopped editing in English Wikipedia for years, so of course, they didn't connect the dots. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the sockpuppets of Đại Việt quốc that vandalized vi-Wikipedia for months, see vi:Thể loại:Tài khoản con rối của Không hề giả trân;
That funny, I do nothing, I just write DYK and write something, Write and write, and write..... and you, how about you. A King of sockpuppets: Đại Việt quốc DHN check you a lot of sockpuppets, you use sockpuppets to attack me, to attack Nguyentrongphu many time. So beautiful face TUIBAJAVE (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable, I used to write criticizing Nguyentrongphu's bad habits. You want more, right? TUIBAJAVE (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]