Wiktionary talk:Vandalism in progress

Wasn't this supposed to have a section for completed blocks? Or did I miss that conversation? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the same vein as the section hereinbefore, wouldn’t it be a good idea to have an archive for this page? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

w:WP:DENY, so no, probably not. --Connel MacKenzie 00:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) · (The section above, refers to keeping them for one week, but moved down to a separate section.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. I suppose it wouldn’t serve much purpose anyway. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I supposed if people are vandalising this page, at least they aren't vandalising other pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello there all. I just wanted to suggest a possibility of maybe getting some kind of auto-revert robot like ClueBot on the English Wikipedia to help with the vandalism around here. We could even go so far as to have it be an adminbot that could delete certain pages that are clearly vandalism and to block offenders. What do you guys think about this suggestion? Razorflame 22:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've thought about it before, I don't think Wikipedia's ClueBot would be terribly useful here without much modification, as we get very different types of vandalism (ours is mainly nonsense page creation, they don't allow anonymous page creations, for example). It would take a considerable amount of programming effort to make such a beast for Wiktionary and ensure that it only does what is expected of it - it might be better to try and get the AbuseFilter extension from Wikipedia and use that (though it looks outrageously complicated too). Conrad.Irwin 22:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I find it peculiar that in the subpage Wiktionary:Point of view pushing new entries are added at the top, whereas here it is done at the bottom of the page. Should we not unify the approach? And begin adding new entrias at the top here too? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unified. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

moved from the subject page — Keφr 16:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Recently, user 123snake45 has been accused by some IP's. I'd like to respond to that.

When 123snake45 was a new user and didn't know much about Wiktionary, (s)he assumed that it was a good thing to add "suggested new words" to Wiktionary, so (s)he went ahead and created buzulkuşu. Both here and at tr.wikt, that entry was deleted shortly after. The admin at tr.wikt explained to 123snake45 that "suggested new words" shouldn't be entered; once 123snake45 understood (that took a while), (s)he no longer tried to add those "suggested words".

The person who is accusing/attacking 123snake45 now, is the Turkish IP user who created all those other Turkish "suggested new words" that don't meet CFI (let's call him our Turkish vandal for shortness' sake). The vandal is pissed off, because 123snake45 knows him (and his invented/suggested/rare/... words) from elsewhere and nominates them (=our vandal's words) for deletion/verification.

To discredit 123snake45, our vandal recently recreated 123snake45's old word buzulkuşu, and then blamed 123snake45 for it. Just another of his many games to fool you all...

Although 123snake45 had a "bad start" at Wiktionary, (s)he now works constructively, and also helps to clean up those non-CFI-meeting Turkish words (here and at other wikis). (As a relatively inexperienced user, 123snake45 might make some errors with formatting/wiki rules, and/or there could be some errors with English spelling/grammar, but that's outside the scope of this all...)

I thought you might want to know what's going on. -- Curious (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the recent rfv for buzulkuşu, you'll see that I already laid out the evidence for that, though you've given fuller context and clearly stated what I merely implied. It was pretty obvious what was going on to anyone who looked at the edit histories and paid attention to which IPs did what. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes 123Snake45 doesn't use his user name but you can see that he may be still trying to add his fabricated words to the wikis. (Look at the records for the words like çevircek, sıvıtçıl, binecek, etc.). He is an "IP user", too. --88.251.13.37 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

(maybe @DTLHS, @Leasnam, @Metaknowledge, @SemperBlotto, @Sgconlaw as you are admins and were active on 4th September)

Please add:
Robbie SWE (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks): Repeated vandalism in substantiv (diff, diff), -țiune (diff, diff), prepoziție (diff, diff), and probably also substantivu.
The obsolete forms in questions do exists and are attestable as for WT's standard of WT:CFI, and as pointed out, it would be a matter of WT:RFVN to verify it if there were doubts about the existense. Also, obsolete forms are within the scope of Wiktionary, for which maybe also compare Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2017/July#"Obsolete" forms that were never really used.
For whatever reason (POV, proscriptivism?) the admin Robbie SWE keeps to remove the obsolete terms and doesn't even give a proper explanation in the edit summary (see the diff links above) and doesn't even bother to use WT:RFVN or WT:RFDO. -84.161.52.32 18:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it's inappropriate to remove links to an alternative form of this kind. But if you created entries and labelled them appropriately, that would be fine. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I take great offense to being accused of vandalism. After the discussion we had at the BP, I have come to accept that these forms, albeit never in general use in the Romanian language, would be added by someone. But I was under the impression that it would be more appropriate to add them in a separate section possibly with "notes" explaining the situation. Simply readding them under alternative forms is not acceptable. Pinging colleagues and calling me a vandal is completely uncalled for. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: substantivu once was created, and if I remember correctly it was labelled properly. (And if it wasn't labelled propely, a label could have been added instead of deleting it without using WT:RFD.) Admin Robbie SWE deleted it nontheless without using WT:RFVN (or maybe WT:RFV back then) and without WT:RFD.
And I can't see any way to stop him from deleting correct information. I restored the obsolete alt form in -țiune and pointed the admin to WT:RFVN. But the admin keeps deleting it (and once even blocked me for adding it). I could create an entry like -tiune or substantivu but I fear the admin would just delete it too without using WT:RFVN or WT:RFD. Hence it seems like a waste of time as a deleted entry can't be restored that easily.

@Robbie SWE: It wasn't just "Alternative forms", it was also with a qualifier labelling it obsolete which it is.
Several people (and this includes some admins) at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2017/July#"Obsolete" forms that were never really used pointed out, that obsolete forms can be added (some quotes: "It's definitely within our ambit.", "someone who wants to spend the time adding them can do so", "All words in all languages."). The qualifier could be adjusted, like "obsolete, rare" instead of just "obsolete", if that would be correct. But that doesn't mean that obsolete forms are excluded.
And obviously, you deleted it without using WT:RFVN or WT:RFD. If a non-admin, especially an IP-user, would delete correct information, it would be called vandalism too. And usually the one who repeatedly deletes correct information, especially if the one doesn't use WT:RFVN or WT:RFD, would be blocked, and not the one adding attestable words or word forms. -84.161.52.32 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Robbie: don't delete something that meets CFI. Anon: You're being intentionally misleading (or a bit dense, but I don't think that's the case). Everyone in that discussion agreed that creating those terms (labelled as obsolete and rare, or possibly with a custom label) is fine, but not that linking to it from the lemma entry is necessarily fine. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

In my defence, I deleted substantivu before we had the BP discussion. Had it been created after that, I wouldn't have deleted it. The only thing I oppose (besides the accusation of being a vandal) is adding these forms in the lemma entry. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I think we can agree that deleting the entry was a mistake (not vandalism- a mistake), but, as I said yesterday to someone else regarding an English entry, linking to obsolete entries gives them undue weight. We should definitely have the entries themselves, because someone might run into them in an old book and want to look them up. Those entries should, of course, link to the lemma for the main form, so that the reader who finds the obsolete forms will know what the current "normal" form is. There's no reason whatsoever to go the other way. Someone who's learning how to use a given term shouldn't be confused by links to forms that no one has heard of. In an encyclopedia, comprehensiveness is often a virtue. In a dictionary, it can be deadly. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I honsetly didn't see that (that is the part "but not that linking to it from the lemma entry is necessarily fine") in the discussion. From what I know it's common practice that alternative forms, even rare and obsolete ones, can be added as alternative forms. It's just that obsolete alternative forms should be labelled correctly, as in heart#Alternative forms, child#Alternative forms, Tor#Alternative forms 2 and many many other entries.
What I saw in the discussion was that the label maybe should be adjusted. Some suggestions were "hypercorrect", "'obsolete' and 'rare'", "obsolete, rare", "create a template". "hypercorrect" doesn't fit. "rare" IMHO seems to be doubtful, but I wouldn't remove it if someone with knowledge added it. "create a template" would also require someone with more knowledge and maybe an admin as it's about templates. But seeing that e.g. heart#Alternative forms as well as many other entries just have a label "obsolete" without further information, I'd guess that obsolete is okay or acceptable. It's not necessarily the best label and it can be improved if someone has more knowlede or better sources, but it still is okay or acceptable.

@Robbie SWE: Even back then WT:RFV (or WT:RFVN), WT:RFD and WT:CFI did exist. And obviously, the entry was created in good faith and was no vandalism like just writing vulgarities in it. That is, even back then the proper way would have been to use WT:RFV (or WT:RFVN) or WT:RFD instead of just deleting it.
As far as I know, one can link to obsolete alternative forms. And I don't see any problem with that. Also, if there is a rule which says otherwise or if there was a vote with another result, it probably could have been linked while removing the terms. Otherwise it would just be your opinion versus common practice or my opinion. (Of course admins have better tools to enforce their opinion as by closing entries so that users can't edit them or by blocking users with other opinions, and there also are admins using these tools, but that can't be a real solution.)

@Chuck Entz: From what I know it's common practice that it can be linked to obsolete terms. (If there is a rule which says otherwise of if there was a vote with another result, please let me know.) As for the "undue weight", maybe an additional label like "rare" or even "very rare" was missing?
Wiktionary is not just for "someone who's learning how to use a given term". Wiktionary also covers how people used (past) a given term. For someone who just wants to learn how a term is used today (today, nowdays) that's irrelevant, but the someone can easily ignore everything labelled obsolete, archaic, dialectal, rare. Yet for someone reading older texts, as for example by Shakespeare - who is one of the most famous English authors - it can be relevant to know older customs. Obsolete forms can also be relevant as they can show relations in a better way. A Low German "Drath" or "Thran" (these are not a fictional but older examples) can superficially be better compared to obsolete High German "Drath" or "Thräne" than to modern High German "Draht" or "Träne", and Low German "Hart" probably can superficially be better compared to obsolete English "hart" instead of modern English "heart".
Also I doubt that there is much confusion if there is a label like "obsolete" or "obsolete, rare".

BTW: Can substantivu be restored, or must it be recreated? I don't know if a label is missing or maybe has to be added as I can't see the old entry, but it shouldn't be a real problem. Maybe "{{alternative form of|" has to be changed to "{{obsolete form of|" or maybe a label like {{lb|ro|obsolete}} ({{lb|ro|obsolete, rare}}) has to be added. -84.161.52.32 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of clarity, let me address my deletion of the entry. Unlike what User:84.161.52.32 says, I did explain my stance here and encouraged them to partake in a BP discussion in order to come to an agreement and/or compromise. In its prior state, substantivu was categorically presented as an obsolete form of substantiv. As a native Romanian speaker I know this is an overstatement at best, bordering on an alternative fact, and after checking in with DEX – DEX provides archaic, obsolete and regional forms if they ever existed, e.g. pâine – I deleted it. I apologise if I didn't follow protocol, but to be frank I haven't seen anywhere in our policy any mention on how we treat "alternative forms used inside isolated circles". I was concerned that we were possibly dealing with Romanian linguistic purism and didn't want Wiktionary in a situation spiralling out of control. I believe that the BP discussion brought some sought-after clarity, but I still feel that we didn't come to a definitive conclusion as to how we should include these types of terms. With that said, the restored substantivu with Metaknowledge's tweaks is fine, even though I would've preferred something more along the lines of -sche's proposal: "obsolete respelling of X proposed in the 1800s". --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/72.128.139.130. I cannot edit the page itself. 128.214.138.138 13:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha I don't know exactly what to request here, but I'm getting some IP (121.157.208.186) on my Wikipedia talk page saying I'm breaking Wikipedia rules- that's their entire edit history. I am not breaking the rule; idk if any investigation can be done to prove it, but if it can be done, I want to see it done so I can win it and stop the comments. Can you send them a warning like "don't make accusations without providing proof" or something similar? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Could you look into this too? I am getting an IP sending me messages on my talk page making accusations against me, and I need help. It creates an unfriendly environment for me. I'm in a position of weakness and need help. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The issue was solved.[1] Thanks. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why, but over the last 24 hours multiple different IP addresses, and now a registered account, have removed content from this page for no clear reason. The only edit summary provided was "Please stop writing narrow minded comments". It might be a good idea to protect the entry. 70.172.194.25 22:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Done Equinox ◑ 22:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

See diff, and the revision history of raindrop cake (the author of one of the quotes did something totally unrelated the IP didn't like, so they kept calling them names and rehashing their actions in the text of the quote). People get bent out of shape for stupid reasons and try to hijack Wiktionary to get even. Anyone who thinks they can accomplish anything in the real world by censoring or inserting text in a dictionary is seriously deluded, IMHO. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/63.153.71.8. Nicodene (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Done. These reports usually go on the page itself, not the talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jberkel (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) Brief reason, if unobvious they erased what I wrote regards gender-critical feminism to remove the bias of it being obviously written by a transgender person. it is a false definition of gender critical feminism 202.161.72.243 10:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's irrelevant who writes it (outside of a person who is blocked), what matters is what is written. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Koavf. Weird name, but alright. Someone hacked into my just-created account. Can you help me with this? First Lady Miss Isippi (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what is weird or someone hacked into your account, but if you need to reset the password, do so at Special:Preferences. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Koavf We shouldn't give this person the time of day. I've had a look at their edit, and it was very obvious agenda-pushing. They're clearly not here to build a dictionary. Theknightwho (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've already blocked this person as well. If you feel like it's not punitive enough, I won't be offended by a longer block. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If they start trouble again, we can just reinstate it I think. Theknightwho (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not autoconfirmed on enwiktionary so I can't edit the main Vandalism in Progress page so I decided to report this on the Talk page instead. I just wanted to let any admins in here know that Wonderfool May 2023 and beyond, an LTA Wonderfool sock has been editing enwiktionary recently. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I started the translation of an article in Romanian that was partially written in English and I received the error:

"This action has been automatically identified as dangerous and therefore denied.

If you really think your modification was constructive, please [2] report this bug ].

A summary description of the abuse rule that matches your action is: Vandalism LTA 1"

I consider that my activity is constructive. How can this situation be resolved? Turner99 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Turner99 This is not the right place to report whatever it is: this is the page for reporting vandalism occurring here at English Wiktionary, and what you're describing is apparently not vandalism and it looks like it's not on English Wiktionary, but Romanian Wikipedia. The summary you give doesn't match any of our abuse filters, and the only one of ours that has been logged for you is the one that notes when a new user adds a raw html link- which you triggered just now.

All I can suggest is that you click on the link you were given and leave a message on that Romanian Wikipedia page. We have no direct relations with Romanian Wikipedia, though it's entirely possible that someone here is coincidentally also active there. I don't think I've even visited that project, so I have no clue about their procedures or practices. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Sarcelles (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks): Out-of-process removals of terms/senses and ignoring WT:CFI, WT:Quotations, WT:RFV, even though proper process was already explained to the user: User talk:Sarcelles#Welcome. Recent examples:
  • out-of-process removals of terms/senses: diff, diff, diff (term already passed RFV)
  • removal of quotes needed for attestion (as per WT:CFI + WT:WDL): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff
  • additions of protologisms: diff (cp. User talk:Sarcelles#Welcome)
  • removal of synonyms: diff (cp. User talk:Sarcelles#holländisch)

  --19:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I suspect there is POV pushing going on from both sides here; you are probably adding quotes and definitions that fit your POV (including pushing it on tangentially related pages), and Sarcelles in turn is removing them because of their own POV. It's not an RFV-related matter to argue about the framing of definitions or how to group them as senses. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's no real excuse for:

• .. out-of-process removals of senses: Proper process is still {{rfv|de}}/{{rfv-sense|de}} + WT:RFVN.
  • diff: After that edit, no definition was present anymore.
  • diff: The sense was added a long time ago in this revision. It was (and is) without cites, but that term/sense is in widespread use and proper process is still {{rfv-sense|de}} + WT:RFVN.
  • diff (term already passed RFV): Again, poper process is WT:RFV, but the term already passed that.
• .. removal of quotations: Quotations are needed as per WT:CFI (3 usages for a WDL), and illustrate usage. Of course, terms can be ambiguous (like Sächsisch cp. diff, Fränkisch cp. diff), but that's what quotations are for: To attest and illustrate various senses. And per NPOV, there can be multiple attested senses, and there's no reason to only list the "best"/"correct" sense [POV here!].
• .. additions of protologisms: WT is no place for protologisms (cp. WT:CFI). The user was kindly asked to attest some terms the user wanted to add (diff), but didn't do it. (And without a separate entry, the terms can't be RFVed properly.)
• .. the removal of the synonym added years ago in diff + diff.

--20:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I have blocked the IP, since it appears they are a known POV-pusher on the English and German Wikipedias, see w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Naramaru. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply