Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress

(Redirected from Wiktionary:VIP)
Wikipedia-logo.png
 WP:Vandalism in progress on Wikipedia

This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly for dealing with issues related to vandalism such as blocking, page-protection, revision deletion, etc. Note: The requested admin actions must be clear-cut and uncontroversial. Thank you for helping us keep an organized Wiktionary!

List new alerts at the top of the list in the following manner for reporting vandals:

* {{vandal|username or IP (without User: prefix)}} Brief reason, if unobvious ~~~~

For hiding and protection requests, make a link to the diff or the page to be protected.

Denied requests will usually have an explanation added here, and be kept for one to seven days before being removed.

Instructions: Please remove performed requests.

New alerts

  • Pequeno Rourano (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) - obvious sock of below. —Fish bowl (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Blocked both for abusing multiple accounts. Eirikr posted his warning, and the new account was created 17 minutes later. It almost made me want to bring back the old "stupidity" block reason- how they thought it would fool anyone for even a minute is beyond me... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The Young Prussian (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) consistently poor edits —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Fish bowl (talkcontribs) at 20:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC).
    • @Justinrleung, Eirikr: while true to some extent, I don't have the background to decide whether this is bad enough for an immediate block. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
      @Chuck Entz: The edits are somewhat problematic, but I'm not sure if that would warrant a block. The edit warring on is a problem, though Fish bowl is also guilty of it. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Thing is, Fish bowl was right -- the edits by The Young Prussian were problematic or flat-out wrong, and in at least one case, they cited a reference that doesn't actually back them up: I'm not sure if this is carelessness or a deliberate attempt at misleading others, but neither is good.
      The Young Prussian's edits to Japanese entries have been almost all problematic. I don't know enough about Chinese to vet their contributions there in any comprehensive fashion, but what I've seen at Chinese does not fill me with confidence in their abilities.
      They've been warned a couple different times on their Talk page, about Japanese and Chinese both. If they persist in problematic edits, I do think a block is warranted -- a short one, with something posted to their Talk page about why, and how to improve. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
      TBF, the CHISE link does back them up — click through to "HDIC-TSJ" → "s0317b702a" ("天治本『新撰字鏡』全文テキストデータベース") — but at any rate
      1. this is a Japanese character dictionary
      2. this is not very good for WT:ATTEST, not "conveying meaning"
      Fish bowl (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
      • @Fish bowl: Thank you, didn't know that was a clickable link (bad website design).
      Even so, the HDIC page for that also says 出典出所不詳 (Shutten: shussho fushō, Source: origin uncertain), leaving me to think that this is a ghost word. Furthermore, just based on the character composition for 𥥪, ("hole" + "rice"), I'd expect a different meaning than "fart". At any rate, this purported alternative form is rare enough that we should not include this, until and unless we can find better sourcing and clear examples of actual use. As you note, we don't have any attested meaning for this glyph. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
      @Eirikr @Fish bowl they’re back, this time on , and also adding some more ultra-rare character pages. I’m on my phone so I’m just seeing squares, but I don’t trust their IDS given their previous edits. Theknightwho (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
      @Theknightwho: Thank you for the heads-up.
      In reviewing their recent edits, it is clear that they don't understand the languages they're adding entries for.
      I have formally warned them not to do that again. We'll see where things go from here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
  • 87.116.161.133 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks) and others as seen on *sьčava: Stubborn unregistered editor of Proto-Slavic entries continuously removes descendants without explanation and adds categories already covered by more specific categories both despite already reverted and with no communication. Fay Freak (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know enough to judge these edits. This needs the attention of admins with background in the subject: @PUC, Thadh, Vorziblix. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with you about the categories. About the descendants: It's a more difficult issue (whether dialectal terms should all be listed at the Proto-Slavic page, or rather on the languages' pages), but one that should be discussed. It seems like their newer edits are more benign. You should start a discussion on their talkpage, explaining what you think they're doing wrong and asking them to create an account for more effective communication. If after creating the discussion, they don't respond and continue making these questionable edits, ping me, and I'll block them for a short while. Thadh (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    I have written him User talk:87.116.167.236, but the IP changes daily, so just in case it reappears you may just move the talk page discussion to his recent IP. @Vorziblix should check whether the Glagolitic, of which he added alot, is legit or made up (like our Mozarabic spellings until recently) or we don’t care (as in Štokavian Cyrillic ones). Fay Freak (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)