Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Maybe, abuse of power by admin Nguyentrongphu on ViWikipedia

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
Nguyentrongphu (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notification

U4C member alert: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Jrogers (WMF), Luke081515 Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheminghui.WU

Description of the problem - (Sheminghui.WU)

I believe Administrator Nguyentrongphu is suspected of violating "Abuse of power, privilege, or influence Abuse occurs when someone in a real or perceived position of power, privilege, or influence engages in disrespectful, cruel, and/or violent behaviour towards other people. In Wikimedia environments, it may take the form of verbal or psychological abuse and may overlap with harassment." Brief summary: Nguyen Trung Phu, the administrator of the Vietnamese Wikipedia, suddenly and without anything happens blocked all my rights on viwiki for a fake and one-word reason. I have tried to negotiate and request other relevant agencies to intervene many times but to no avail, he seems refused to reply. He just told the third party that he needed someone else’s “vouch” to unblock me. This shows that he uses his power to disrespect others. See the "previous" section for more details.(I also came here at the suggestion of a volunteer from the previous RfC.)

I reject Nguyentrongphu's accusation of "government propaganda" and hope he will not attack me again out of political bias, which violates the code of conduct. My discussion was clearly restrained and constructive, and I reached a consensus with other users to add negative comments to balance the content.

First, the Viwiki discussion post Nguyenphutrong gave was written in English (because the other user I was discussing with was using English). English speakers can read for themselves to see if there was any malicious intent. The only Vietnamese word I used was "dien," meaning telegram. and The content I posted was simply the official translation of the Chinese condolence message, which can be found on various websites through full-text searches. I believe an official condolence message would not involve any malicious intent either.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Sheminghui.WU)

More details see: Requests for comment/Maybe, abuse of power by admin Nguyentrongphu on ViWikipedia, In addition, although email and editing of my own talk page have been blocked, I have called Nguyentrongphu twice at different times on his Chinese Wikipedia talk page (I thought it was a mistake block at the time), and I also sent him an email through Wikipedia some time ago, but received no reply. I believe it can now be proven that he saw the messages. Although the viwiki arbitration committee is not operating, I also sent an email to the viwiki local community mailbox at the suggestion of user (RfC participant) SCP2000. It has been over seven days and I have not received a reply yet. (See RfC for details)

Suggested solutions - (Sheminghui.WU)

First, please unconditionally unblock me as soon as possible, eliminate the impact caused by this action, and offer a basic apology. Second, I'd appreciate any behavioral advice you might have for him, as he's an active "cleaner" and seems to frequently block volunteers with all permissions (resulting in numerous complaints and appeals on his foreign user page). I have some experience with Wikimedia(This still makes me feel awkward and drains my energy), but many people may not. I wonder if anyone else has been wrongfully blocked like me and has no way to appeal. Thanks.

I am grateful that Ngueyentrongphu is finally willing to address the issue openly, thanks. Unfortunately, I think Nguyenphutrong's proposed solution only addresses one point (one third, in fact) of my request. It is his working method that brought this matter here (U4C), which is also an important point we should discuss for.

In addition, I don't understand how whether I am from Australia has anything to do with whether I have trolled. If my speech has indeed seriously affected the order of viwiki and needs to be completely banned, I plead guilty and accept the punishment.

I acknowledge that Nguyentrongphu, as an active administrator, has reasonable concerns that he might be attacked by people with ulterior motives (see the discussion page), but this is not necessarily related to whether his behavior (the objective facts that have already occurred) is problematic.

I've expressed my own support for the Viwiki community's reforms and have decided to proceed with the local process for other requirements. I want to thank everyone for participating in this stressful process. It has been productive and has produced good results. --Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unconditionally unblocked on viwiki, and U4C has provided reasonable work recommendations to Nguyentrongphu, Viwiki local community has also initiated reforms to its block appeal process. After the reform proposal passes, those facing similar circumstances will finally have an avenue to appeal. The workload for Viwiki administrators (and other related users) will likely increase in the coming period, and I'd like to thank them here. At the same time, I don't have to go through the local appeals process again.

I know that the viwiki local community has own special circumstances, but this is also the proposal and decision of the local community. No one knows how it will change in the future, but the banned newcomers should always be given at least respect. Let us see how things develop and trust that local communities can manage their own development, we can continue to improve it. Best regards ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyentrongphu

Description of the problem - (Nguyentrongphu)

User:Civvì I placed a block on Sheminghui.WU because he has 0 contribution and was trying to spread governmental propaganda in a political sensitive topic. We have had a lot of problems with political socks since 2007. Spreading propaganda is not okay per Vi community discussion. His behavior is identical to some of other Vi socks who also pretend to speak English. Now, I admit that this may have been an honest mistake/false positive. I'm willing to unblock him. See my solution below. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mickie-Mickie's block was probably a mistake, but my block was justified because he reverted back an edit of a well-known LTA in Vi Wikipedia (Kayani). He also had a lengthy discussion with another Vi admin here. In the end, he simply doesn't understand the norm in Vi Wikipedia. Every community has their own norm, policies and procedures. I've unblocked him as a good will token. Also, I just want to point out that he was also blocked on another project for similar behavior. People are blocked on non-home Wiki for minor incidents all the time. I'm blocked in English Wikipedia myself, but I've never been blocked in Vi during my 17 years tenure. Reputation matters in Wikipedia I guess. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal process doesn't work because we lack man power. It's not because the appeal process itself is flawed. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - (Nguyentrongphu)

Suggested solutions - (Nguyentrongphu)

  • My proposed solution: a steward should checkuser Sheminghui.WU, and if he's from Australia like he claims, I will consider his trolling to be a misunderstanding and unblock him. Also, please make sure it's a real IP from Australia and not proxy/VPN. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple accounts were invited here by unknown sender, so I can conclude that I'm currently a victim of a well-coordinated attack by someone (probably this sock). I've made a lot of enemies over the years because I'm the most active admin on Vi Wikipedia. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, we do have a normal appeal process (just like any other Wikipedia) where blocked users can just appeal directly on their talk page. In fact, in most cases, appeal is done on the talk page. Due to severe abuse in the past, we have a special appeal process for LTAs. This was discussed at length in the past, with input from many different Vi users and admins. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to go ahead and unblock Sheminghui.WU. Vietnamese Wikipedia will discuss and reform the appeal process to make it better for everyone involved in the future. I want to thank you everyone for participating in this stressful process. It has been productive and has produced good results. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

  • Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
  • Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
  • Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
  • All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (Mickie-Mickie)

I was an international law major in the graduate school, a military officer on the front line, and a government official on the referred field back over 30 years ago - many English and zh-TW admins and users here have known me from my past 27,000+ edits based on my professional background since 2015. I would like to testify that Sheminghui.WU's experience is not alone - there have been similar case occurred by Nguyentrongphu, and I have never been offered the appeal option (info-vi@wikimedia.org) as mentioned below either, yet being totally blocked in the Vietnam Wiki. including my own talk page and every other pages with no email accessible.

Please see the following evidence links: I registered in the Vietnamese project in 2024, but only made 6 minor edits on the information update for the international politics topic due to my specialty this year]. In June 6, I suddenly saw an abnormal mass deletion of 55,944 characters which reverted all the 19 edits from various editors back to the revision 64889599 in 11 May 2021 over 4 years ago without any explanation in the edit summary nor in the article's Talk page, so I followed the Wikipedia's regulation to reverse the suspected vandalism with the proper explanation in the summary line demanding an explanation or discussion in the Talk page, but I was suddenly blocked as a sock puppet of "MiG29VN", then shortly unblocked after other users posted explanation that I am not one, then immediately banned again by Nguyentrongphu, even the other administrators' inquires and explanations in the administrator board and in his own talk page were all rejected. And 4 of my international organization info updates (1, 2, 3, 4), which are irrelevant to the dispute and could not possibly have any problem, were also reverted for no reason till today, whereas the out-of-date info for up to years old are still displayed for the public - who is the one harming the Encyclopedia's reputation and credibility?!

As shown above, Nguyentrongphu continuously recited his own ideology but rejecting to listen to others' opinion, even ignored the questions from his admin colleagues on the administrator board. In his Talk page, he kept shifting standpoints and eating his own words, such as first referring me a sock puppet of "MiG29VN", then change tone as "Tran" then "Chinese"..., eventually presenting no evidence nor reasonable doubt on any sign of these four relating to each other in which way, (while I am actually neither "MiG29VN", nor "Tran", not a Chinese and never been in China for the obvious reason). He did not honour the Assume good faith guideline nor the Presumption of innocence principle, but on the contrary, framed the newcomer as guilty first then takes it for granted to request the target showing proof to prove innocence, and keeps posting threatening attitude in open public including his Talking page for example.

I have no intention to reclaim the Vietnamese account for myself, since my current 270 projects have been keeping me busy. Nonetheless, at least Sheminghui.WU and the other victim(s) do deserve a legal apology for the inadequate treatment and ignorance, and Wikipedia's discipline needs to be respected. Nguyentrongphu with the honesty issue should not be holding such an unlimited power to dominate a platform without supervision to decide other users' fate inconsiderately in the existing tyranny pattern, otherwise more victims will be sacrificed in vain. Please kindly restore their accounts without further threats. Thanks for your attention, and wish you a good day. Sincerely, -- Mickie-Mickie (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latest statement of Nguyentrongphu: "Just to be clear, we do have a normal appeal process (just like any other Wikipedia) where blocked users can just appeal directly on their talk page." is certainly untrue! Beside the only original Welcome box with message from "JohnsonLee01Bot", there is no notification or any kind of post on my Talk page. As described earlier, the block prevents any edit in every pages of Vietnamese Wikipedia including my own Talk page, where the "Add topic" button is removed and the only "Edit source" button leads to the following pop-up blocking message:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Your username or IP address has been blocked.
The block was made by ‪Nguyentrongphu‬. The reason given is Rối.
Start of block: 09:29, 7 June 2025
Expiration of block: infinite
Intended blockee: ‪Mickie-Mickie‬
You can contact ‪[Nguyentrongphu‬] or another [administrator] to discuss the block. You can use the "Email this user" feature if a valid email address is specified in your preferences and you have not been blocked from using it...

However, clicking on the "Nguyentrongphu‬" button leads to the View-only mode, and the "administrator" button leads to the Wikipedia:Administrators page where further finding an administrator's page leads to same result of the above blocking message leaving no possibility to communicate. The referred "Email this user" feature line is also removed from the pages, even though my email address is always present in the "Preferences" with the "Email options" always on as indicated, hence the instant ban still blocks all the above communication tools till today – as I just tested in the Vietnamese platform. Just to be clear. -- Mickie-Mickie (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Snowladen)

I received an email linking me to this topic and another one is the Requests for comment. I'm here to give a testimony that Nguyentrongphu has the habit of doubting people being sockpuppets of some bad users and give out ultimate blocks without any proof. I'm also one of his victims in Vietnamese Wikipedia. (here and there)

Back when I was blocked, I have never been offered the appeal option (I tried to contact Nguyentrongphu, as well as fellow admins DHN and Plantaest). Nguyentrongphu ignored me. DHN advised me to speak to Plantaest. Plantaest advised me to edit under another account (which is no different from evading ban).

If any steward or judge loves to check my Vietnamese ID card to see if I am a sock as accused, do send me an email.

I'm writing here not to seek being unbanned there (I regretted being there and contributed there), but to show evidence that this kind of behavior does not happen once. And is that kind of person deserve to be an admin. Probably like English Wikipedia admins once said, he was not there to build a wiki. Snowladen (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (TCU9999)

I am a Vietnamese editor who mainly edit English Wikipedia. In late June 2025, I edited some articles in Vietnamese Wikipedia, mostly North Korea-related and missile-related articles (My contributions in Vietnamese Wikipedia). On 25 June 2025, I was accused of being a sockpuppet (Rối) of an individual called "MiG29VN". Later, I was indefinitely blocked from editing all pages in Vietnamese Wikipedia, including my talk page, and all edits before the block were reverted, even it is constructive. I have appealed this block by emailing Vietnamese Wikipedia VRT (info-vi@wikimedia.org). In early July, I submitted evidence to prove that I am not a sockpuppet of "MiG29VN" via this email. However, a month after appealing, I am still blocked in Vietnamese Wikipedia, according to my CentralAuth.

As I have appealed the block to Vietnamese Wikipedia VRT, and my edits in Vietnamese Wikipedia are apparently constructive, I want to prove that I am not a sockpuppet of "MiG29VN", and therefore, the wrongful block against me should be lifted. TCU9999 (talk) 06:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Henrydat)

First I opposed to any personal attacks about edits in 2022 as a new user.

  • "Mickie-Mickie's block was probably a mistake, but my block was justified because he reverted back an edit of a well-known LTA in Vi Wikipedia" (Nguyentrongphu).
    • Không thông qua điều 1: Lùi sửa, bổ sung lại những đoạn, câu từ diễn đàn,... trong các phiên bản rối đã bị các Bảo trì viên (Điều phối viên, Bảo quản viên, Hành chính viên,...) hủy bỏ nội dung. (reference: vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết/Bổ sung quy định Chống rối)

Nguyentrongphu made the ban without the consent of the viwikipedia community and he chưa đồng ý in 2020. Henrydat (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I think they should be unblocked without any process. They don't need permission to edit (normal page). Henrydat (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BRPever What do you think the purpose of this discussion is? I see Sheminghui.WU is blocked on viwikipedia with 15 edits and have autopatrolled permission on metawiki. Nguyentrongphu never responded to any unblock requests on their talk page and refused to unblock even VRT members, see [2], except under pressure. I followed case of Mickie-Mickie for a long time (I guess they won't open a discussion because there's no benefit) and they were unblocked after 2 months here and after spamming on metawiki (Nguyentrongphu deleted all the content on their talk page). Henrydat (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Phương Linh)

– Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 11:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

I would like to add one piece of information. User:Liuxinyu970226, who participated in the RfC discussion and "communicated with viwiki members offline", took advantage of this incident to slander me on an irrelevant page, even though he tried to "vouch for" me two days ago. (I don't know if this information is appropriate to add here) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheminghui.WU the block was changed, you can now edit your talk page on viwiki and follow the local unblock request procedure, you can find it here: vi:Wikipedia:Chống lại quyết định cấm. --Civvì (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reminder(also thanks that viwiki user), I will have a look. However, my complaint here is mainly about the administrator's conduct mode violating the code of conduct. My own efforts and local procedures to unblock me are not enough to solve the problem. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nguyentrongphu I sympathize with administrators who deal with sockpuppeting, as your blocklog seems to indicate, but not being a CU I wouldn't sistematically check the "Editing own talk page" option. The block of the requesting user was apparently a mistake, and this is fine, it happens. What is not so fine is not replying to requests by the blocked user. Can you please provide some explanation for this? Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civvì I've dealt with socks for many years now. The Vi community doesn't trust CU results for long term abuse sock masters since they know how to evade checkuser by changing IP frequently. It's easy to do nowadays. Sheminghui made a trolling comment at an article talk page in a sensitive political topic despite having 0 contribution to Vietnamese Wikipedia. Hence, he was blocked because he acted like a sock. We have our own procedure on how to deal with LTA socks, which was discussed at length before in Vietnamese Wikipedia. Someone should have replied through our mailbox at info-vi@wikimedia.org, but people got busy I suppose. I'm the admin who does the blocking, so obviously, someone else has to deal with block appeal. What makes you so sure that Sheminghui.WU isn't a sock? I'm open to unblock him if given a good rationale. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nguyentrongphu can you give us the edit which is the trolling comment and if it requires cultural understanding, explain the trolling? I think it's great that there is an email account for blocked users with no talk page access. Many projects do not have that. However, no notice was put on Sheminghui.WU's talk page about the block so how does Vietamese Wikipedia let users know they can email info-vi@wikimedia.org? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 Here. A month ago, I've started to inform suspected LTA socks about the email in the summary block after other Vi admins suggested it to me (for example). Nguyentrongphu (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but if someone (with essentially 0 contribution) comes to a political sensitive topic and starts spreading governmental propaganda, it sure looks like a sock to me. Now, no one is perfect, so it's possible that I make a mistake from time to time. Successful appeals do happen once in a while. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply moved to talk page.--BRP ever 09:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was sufficiently neutral and polite in the discussion forum you provided. I posted this thread out of respect for other community volunteers, and I pasted the full text of the proposed addition to facilitate editing and discussion. Furthermore, I believe my discussion was constructive, as another viwiki user expressed positive feedback on my proposal after. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think his statement is self-contradictory. If his so-called judgment was sufficiently certain that I am indeed a sockpuppet and warranted blocking my account, why did he state on Liuxinyu's talk page that my block could be lifted as long as he vouched for me? Does this mean that a sockpuppeteer can be unblocked simply by obtaining a guarantee from a long-standing user on another wiki?
If the evidence was insufficient to determine that I am a sockpuppet, then this was an erroneous block—why wasn't I unconditionally unblocked? Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I should say that lack of contribution is indeed one of the criteria for judging sockpuppet accounts. While it's true that I only have a few dozen edits on viwiki, I can't argue with that, but I did state on my user page that I am a interwiki translator, which should be enough to prove I'm not a hastily fabricated bot account. Moreover, what I'm appealing now is his alleged disrespect toward others. I explained the situation to him, but he completely ignored it.
Regarding political matters, the Code also states that one should not be influenced by political bias. First of all, I don't understand what you mean by "promoting for the government on sensitive pages." I admit I didn't speak like a robot because it was a talk page, and I was deeply saddened by Comrade Nguyen Phu Trong's sudden passing. I merely suggested adding condolences from China to the "Reception" section of the article. This might not align with viwiki's local conventions—I'm not sure—but how does that constitute promotion? Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I look like a puppet. A puppet must have a master. Can you tell me where my master is? Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a mixup between 'trolling' and 'sockpuppeting', where the first behavioural pattern was meant here. Ghilt (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I'm sorry, I'm not very familiar with wiki English terminology ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, here is a glossary, Ghilt (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought so(troll), but UserLiuxinyu pointed out that the word (roi) here means "puppet", so I'm not sure if that's correct. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the logical problems I mentioned earlier still apply. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I need to mention that after UserMrLove pointed out the neutrality issue, I suggested adding corresponding negative reviews to the reception section (if it is decided to be established) to balance it out (this is a common practice). ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, maybe I'm directionally challenged on Wikipedia, but this email wasn't that easy to find. I only learned of its existence after someone pointed it out. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Friends at U4C: Look at these ubiquitous complaints. Perhaps Vietnamese Wikipedia has long suffered systematic attacks by certain online groups. While I don't claim full understanding of the situation, the sheer volume of grievances makes it hard not to question this administrator's conduct. This is precisely why I rejected that arrogant and illogical 'private settlement' proposal.
Granted, these complainants might all be puppet accounts. Your investigation might ultimately prove the dedicated Admin Nguyentrongphu was framed. But regardless of the outcome, the controversy itself is undeniable. When legitimate concerns reach such scale, they demand formal investigation. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we tolerate such administrative conduct merely because of an admin's personal contributions, is this truly beneficial for the sustainable development of the Wikimedia movement? Vietnamese Wikipedia is a beautiful flower blooming despite censorship(sort of I should acknowledge), yet how many contributors, arriving with the ideals of Wiki, have come to viwiki only to be -not only discouragement- blocked by this admin? He remained absolutely silent to me until the case was referred to U4C(althrough he had privately told a third party that he was willing to unblock me), is this a normal way to resolve a problem? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to say is that the articles that I cite in my accusation here are not any other articles, but the articles mostly about his working methods. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Nguyentrongphu first of all, thank you for being such an active admin in viwiki. But as a fellow admin (on dewiki), sometimes admin decisions are "educated guesses" (also called Duck test) and therefore create false-positive attribution to trolling. I'm not saying this was the case with Sheminghui.WU, because i still have to read some more details. But because of the false-positives there needs to be a functional appeal process: the appeal possibility must be clearly visible and the requests for appeals need to be answered and decided, ideally by someone who was not previously involved. How could this be improved?
Ghilt (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ghilt English Wikipedia also has an appeal process that is not public. I've been making it clear that they can appeal through info-vi@wikimedia.org every time I block a suspected LTA. We do have an appeal process, and some appeals were successful before. The problem is admins are also volunteers. That means they're not always active at info-vi@wikimedia.org. There is another admin who is in charge of that email and has been doing the appeal process for a while now. The process can be improved if there are more admins involved with the appeal process, but sadly, that's out of my control. I can't force other admins to do extra work that they didn't sign up for since Wikipedia is volunteer work. We did try to ask for more people to help out at info-vi@wikimedia.org, but no other admin stepped up (sadly). Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even give me any instructions on how to file a complaint. I browsed various pages, including one about the inactive arbitration committee, and asked multiple times in various off-site group chats(and other members of the zhwiki Vietnam Task Force), but still couldn't find any such channel. How many people were affected by this "oversight" of yours? According to your previous statement, the situation wasn't corrected until a month ago. You never even bothered to give people a chance to file a complaint, which I think is a violation of the Code of Conduct in itself. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started doing that (making the appeal email known) after other Vi admins told me to do it. The process was improved like 1-2 months ago. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Sheminghui.WU I understand your frustration but there is no need to add a new comment literally every couple of minutes, thanks --Civvì (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for the trouble. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Sheminghui.WU I am asking again to not comment every new reply or feedback from other users unless you have something really relevant and new to add. Please use the sections of this page according to the indications, this is not a space for discussion among parties or parties and other users. Otherwise we will need to limit access to the page. Thanks for understanding.--Civvì (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those replies that did not follow the rules were initiated by Nguyentrongphu, as you can see: "'Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section', I don't know if this applies to you or me". In addition, for some inadequate reason, I believed that Nguyentrongphu, an experienced Wikimedian, understood the rules of every part of the U4C page. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
arguments like "the other started" or "but them too" are not good arguments. Ghilt (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know, but this is the fact, I only stated this after receiving a reminder/warning that was only for me. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheminghui.WU It was you because you are actively responding to almost every comment made to this case (you don't really have to) and it is causing a bit of a disruption in U4C's ability to hear all parties and understand the situation. Hence, the request for you to stop. BRP ever 14:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit my problem, I was only talking about the "Please use the sections of this page according to the indications" part. I will not be that active respond anymore. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Nguyentrongphu:, I have a few questions about the appeal process and how the blocks are placed on Vietnamese Wikipedia.
    • Do you have any definite idea whose sock it is before you place the block for that reason?
    • Is the appeal process mentioned in the MediaWiki block notice or in talk page messages?
    • How many admins are currently active in reviewing blocks through this process? Can you please give an overview of how it works?
    • Why don’t you use local CheckUser to verify whether the claimed user is actually a sock or not? It should be easy to figure out if someone is obviously trying to avoid a check.

Thanks, --BRP ever 13:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BRPever Most of the time (above 90% of the time), I do have an idea of whose sock it is. There is a group of "political sock" (a group of related but different people) that has been active on Vi Wikipedia since 2007-2008. They often have 0 contribution and jump right into a political topic right away and make controversial edits or spread propaganda. It's very difficult to pinpoint exactly whose sock it is. They all have the same POV pushing biased agenda.
The appeal is mentioned through MediaWiki block notice. If the talk page is not revoked, they can just appeal directly on their talk page.
One other admin is in charge of info-vi@wikimedia.org email. I don't have access to that email to remain independent of the appeal process. As for the normal appeal process, 0 admin is in charge of that because most admins aren't active in admin work. All of them have retired after controversial incidents in the past. There is nothing I can do to change that. I can't force people to do work that they don't want to do. We're trying to vote for new admins, but not enough people step up. Either that or they're not competent enough (need more time to learn the rope). Sometimes, someone stepped up, but the community voted to not give them the admin tool. Anyone can stand for admin election. User:Hide on Rosé is expected to run next year (probably will pass).
I don't trust the checkuser results. Again, I've been combating socks for a long time. Most of the time, checkuser results are useless against LTAs since anyone can easily jump IP nowadays. That's why "duck test" has been used a lot in English Wikipedia. Checkuser works against newbie socks, not LTAs. Knowing someone trying to avoid a check doesn't do anything. The IP has to match exactly to the sock master to legitimize checkuser block. Again, the Vi Wikipedia community has enabled me to use "duck test". We do have a recall process for admin. Any established user can initiate the process, and if enough people vote me out, I will be forced to step down. We've had 6 successful recalls over the years. I get a lot of heat because I'm the only admin still active in dealing with socks. The fact that I'm still here means that I'm still trusted by the community. Sure, I do have disputes with other admins from time to time, but we still consider each other good colleagues. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, we still do checkuser on inexperienced socks from time to time nowadays. Inexperienced socks are easy to catch through IP check. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Henrydat:, to me, the goal is to make sure the appeal process is actually working and that Sheminghui.WU is able to make local appeals. It’s more about building local capacity than doing things for the local community. As our name suggests, this is a Coordinating Committee.--BRP ever 18:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nguyentrongphu I can completely understand the stress but reading the talk page of the case I didn't get the impression that your community wants this. There is no need to resign if you want to take a break. --Civvì (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ghilt: Thank you for your work and reminder. However, I no longer need to file a local appeal. Nguyentrongphu already unconditionally unblocked me before me to do so. and I don't think I need to pursue a separate apology, this itself carries the apology after realizing the mistake. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Civvì: I don’t think he will change his decision, even though many members of the Vietnamese Wikipedia community have advised him as you did. As someone who often talks with him, I can explain a bit: he strongly dislikes outsiders interfering in his and our community’s affairs (my apologies if this sounds a bit blunt). He has a deep resentment toward English Wikipedia, Meta, and especially the WMF because of past incidents. Overall, this case was the last straw, and I believe we should respect Nguyentrongphu’s decision.
    He has a small family and is also facing financial difficulties amid the global economic downturn and instability, so he wishes to take a break to focus on his family instead of spending time on strangers he doesn’t know (myself included). It’s quite a sad ending, but the Vietnamese Wikipedia community still has ways to continue functioning smoothly. We are not a very large community, but that allows us to deeply understand each member’s decisions.
    Thank you for your support during this time. Best regards, Plantaest (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

  • I'm thinking I will vote to decline this case. The specific conduct Sheminghui.WU was blocked for has been made clear and there is a local appeals option - email to info-vi@wikimedia.org - which has not been done. I would be open to an appeal after that if there are still issues. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There might be an issue about non-functional appeal process, even if the original block was acceptable. There needs to be a working appeal process. Ghilt (talk) 07:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Before deciding I'd like to read the replies to BRP's questions, I do not agree that the block was acceptable, their only edits in ns0 were not reverted and asking in a talk page to add the text of a condolences telegram does not qualify as trolling imho (but maybe there were also some language misunderstandings which I am not aware of). Blocking a user without any warning and almost three months after the last edit does not really make sense to me and the appeal process obviously did not work in this case. I'd like to focus on how to help to improve the process for other possible false positives. --Civvì (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like at least two viwiki users read ill intent into the talk page discussion and while I am only getting a GoogleTranslation version I don't find that interpretation to be unreasonable. I think @Nguyentrongphu really should stop making sock blocks without being able to say who the master is (as an experienced Checkuser I think they have simplified LTA avoidance of Checkuser so far as to be a problem). I do not like the idea of trolling = socking. However, trolling is a UCoC violation and so if they had blocked for the actual behavior they did not like and can point to specifically, trolling, rather than behavior they cannot prove, socking, I feel like everyone would have been saved a lot of grief. Now what is stopping me from just declining this case is the broader question of admin capacity around appeals. Having the email address - and now making that clear to people - is a good thing (it would be even better if they left a talk page message about it). But not having any admins who can actually handle appeals means it wouldn't be appropriate to direct Sheminghui.WU back to viwiki processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Nguyentrongphu needs to take greater care when placing blocks. Not knowing whose sock it is makes me doubt that their judgment will always be correct. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", then only is it a duck. The community needs to work with CheckUsers on these issues, like most other communities do. The community and CheckUsers can work together to fix the inadequacies in the process. I request that the local CheckUsers of Vietnamese Wikipedia use our combined mailing list (CheckUser-l) to ask questions and develop best practices for their community based on how other wikis handle similar situations.
That being said, I see the local discussion to not block talk page access unless necessary as a big step forward in making the local appeal process easier. I’m sympathetic towards admins who have faced harassment and threats from sockpuppets and understand their reasoning for adopting a harsher process. Thank you for doing your best to protect the wiki. I’m also sympathetic to users who were blocked as false positives and had to go through an appeal process that didn’t work. Thank you for being patient. I request that admins involved in VRT review the pending emails and unblock talk page access for users with genuine appeals, so they can make local appeals, visible to all administrators.
As for this case, I see that Sheminghui.WU’s talk page access was restored, so I think they should try making a local appeal there now. With Vietnamese Wikipedia positively assessing the situation and working to improve the process, I don’t think our intervention is necessary. As such, I am leaning toward decline for this case. Thanks,--BRP ever 06:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to decline. I think the discussion on this page and the talk page was very constructive and I would like to thank all participants. I was sorry to read about harassment and threats, that's one of the unpleasant parts of trying to keep our projects a safe place for editors. Dear viwiki community, please consider to explore global resources for assistance, maybe collaboration with GS could help relieve pressure on local administrators? The local discussion about keeping TPA open for blocked users is really positive and a significant step towards trying to resolve the issues with appeals. Please also consider ensuring that blocked users receive a message on their page explaining the reasons for the block and how to appeal. I would also recommend to User:Nguyentrongphu to take the time to respond to users who repeatedly request explanations about their blocks, administrators should be accountable for their actions. I would also reccomend to try to take things a little easier. The kind of language used on this page (referring to being a victim, having enemies, the existence of coordinated attacks, etc.) could suggest that you are possibly experiencing some stress. The discussion on this page has been constructive, there is no need to see enemies where there are none. The same applies to patrolling and dealing with (new) users. Thanks! --Civvì (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

Acknowledging that this has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Maybe,_abuse_of_power_by_admin_Nguyentrongphu_on_ViWikipedia&oldid=29365774"