Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with current instances of vandalism. List new alerts at the top of the list in the following manner:

* {{vandal|username or IP}} Brief reason why, preferably a link to a vandalized page. ~~~~

Don’t include the User: prefix in the template!

Please do not add cases older than two to three hours. Denied requests will have an explanation added here, and be kept for one to seven days before being removed. Thank you for helping us keep an organized Wiktionary!

Admins: Please remove performed blocks.

New alerts[edit]

Blocked for 3 days, but that can be extended if necessary. Definitely stubborn and persistent- probably a libertarian who takes the pejorative nature of the term far too personally. I'm hoping they'll forget about it over the next few days- but if not, I'll gladly block them for longer. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Rotlink (talkcontribsdeleted contribspage movesblock userblock logactive blocks) This user has been adding a ton of weird additions to reference links with a summary of "fixing dead links", all seeming to lead to the same strange website, some kind of archive site. I'm not sure if these edits are helpful or not, so forgive me if it's me being the stupid one here, but I'm pretty sure this is some kind of spam bogus that no one has caught yet. If so, could someone please block this user, rollback their edits, and/or any other necessary actions to this user? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually it turns out he was actually fixing the dead links with the archive site it seems, since the site archived it all before it got deleted, but is this really the right thing to do? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Never heard of web.archive.org? Looks okay to me. However, TOW had a discussion about archive.is some time ago, links to which were systematically added by the same user. There might be some agenda in play here. I advise some caution. Keφr 16:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Type56op9 (talkcontribsdeleted contribspage movesblock userblock logactive blocks) Accused of being a sockpuppet of the infamous Wonderfool by User:Talking Point (see here). I somehow doubt it's Wonderfool we're talking about here, since to my understanding the last I saw of him was in 2010, but I may be wrong. It's still a possibility, and I'd say we should watch this user. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    WF is always around and almost everyone is a potential Wonderfool, but this one is definitely him. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, so everyone knew already? And I thought I would be doing the big reveal. I am quite surprised, though. After Semper blocked him in April it seemed he had given up completely. Keφr 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wait, could someone explain to me what exactly Wonderfool is doing wrong here? All (or most) of his edits seem to be okay, I don't see why he should be blocked. I understand the banning policy, but could someone explain to me what exactly he is doing/has done wrong? I don't actually know that much about this user, I just know I found his account one time and read a bit about him, that's all I know. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 01:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing under this account yet, but repeatedly deleting the main page tends to leave the community quite pissed off. No one is really sure if he atoned for his sins yet and can be trusted again, and constantly jumping accounts does not help. He still acts as a local prankster, even without administrative tools, and he does have the occasional slip in judgement. And yet, some here have grown fond of him. Keφr 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
We have a working arrangement: he sticks to one account at a time and doesn't pull anything, we leave him alone. His work on Asturian is general good, his work on Spanish and French isn't bad, for the most part. He's an experienced, prolific editor, and when he's on his good behavior he does a lot of decent work. He does tend to go for quantity, rather than quality, and has some real weak spots in his judgement when it comes to SOP and isn't great when it comes to definitions. Every once in a while, he goes off the rails and starts adding garbage, at which point he gets blocked. He's quite friendly and helpful most of the time, but he should never, ever, ever be completely trusted or taken at his word. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So there is no definite banning policy here I assume? Wonderfool is banned on Wikipedia, and I do not like the entire banning policy, I think it should like die in a fire. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 13:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, WF is officially banned, and we have several others- most, very deservedly so, a few questionable, but arrived at by long, thorough debate and consensus. WF is different only because of his persistence at evading the ban with new accounts (literally hundreds) and the effort/paranoia necessary to make it really stick. We eventually decided it wasn't worth holding to the letter of the ban: consider his current state something like being on a work furlough or parole. If he goes back to his old ways, we block him until he starts behaving again. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say there are at least 2 WF socks operating right now: User:Type56op9 and User:ReidAA. Both should be watched with a wary eye. He desperately craves our acceptance, but every now and then, he loses it and goes on a rampage. -- · (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
ReidAA is like WF in some ways, but isn't WF. He/she has a different editing style and is still making the type of mistakes one would expect from someone without a full understanding of how to do things on Wiktionary. I suppose it could be an act, but I've seen many instances of WF posing as a newbie, and I don't think this is one of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think User:ReidAA's edits (those porky quotations, which he reuses for half the words in them) resemble those of WF's incarnation as User:SixTwo, even if the former uses the {{quote-whatever}} templates while the latter didn't. In talk exchanges, both have a similar manner as well. (Note too that ReidAA started in from his first edits using these templates, which is not such a newbie-ish thing to do.) Time will tell, but I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that User:ReidAA will turn out to be good old WF. -- · (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
(a) I'm not WF, and I don't crave your acceptance. My craving is to move the Wiktionary slightly in the direction of the OED, the 2nd edition of which has long been by my armchair. (b) What mistakes am I making? Someone pointed out to me that the {{quote-book}} template is defective in putting the chapter number in the wrong place, but how else is using it wrong? And what other mistakes am I making? (c) What is "porky" about the quotes I'm putting in ? (d) What's wrong with putting a quote in in various places, especially when a sense hasn't any quote so far ? (e) Has your equating me to WF made me vulnerable to him/her taking over my Wiktionary sign-on ? (f) Where will I look for your answers to these questions ? Maybe you should email them to me at "ag.ad.reid@gmail.com" — ReidAA (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, this is WF's account for now. Of course, next time it'll be a different one. Regards, amigos. --Type56op9 (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Lo Ximiendo (talkcontribsdeleted contribspage movesblock userblock logactive blocks) is an otherwise productive editor, but since at least August has been moving dozens of alternative medicine terms out of the Pseduoscience category and into medical categories. Frex:
    • 10:30, 4 August 2013 colorpuncture ‎ (removed Category:en:Pseudoscience; added Category:en:Medicine using HotCat)
    • 10:34, 4 August 2013 hexagonal water ‎ (removed Category:en:Pseudoscience; added Category:en:Medicine using HotCat)
    • 22:24, 12 November 2013‎ faith healer (removed Category:en:Pseudoscience; added Category:en:Healthcare occupations using HotCat)
    • 14:31, 16 December 2013 charmstone ‎ (removed Category:en:Pseudoscience; added Category:en:Medical equipment using HotCat)
    • 14:31, 16 December 2013 crystal healing ‎ (removed Category:en:Pseudoscience; added Category:en:Medicine using HotCat)

Please monitor this user's edits. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a very interesting case, as LX is also an admin, therefore the recent block that Semper gave her (3 days) is not a real block unless she chooses to respect it. LX has been very unstable, both on Wiktionary and on Facebook, for a few months. You can look at her talkpage and see that this is a recurring problem (or look at the history of e.g. ozone therapy). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I honestly believe that she has schizophrenia. I don’t know if she’s seeking any professional help (probably not), but I think that she needs it. We should encourage her to overcome her challenges, for both her and our sakes. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Still more concerning are her anti-vax edits to vaccination [1] and autism [2]. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ozone dissolves into one's bloodstream. And regardless, this article got my attention. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You really need to be more discriminating about your sources. I could find articles on the Internet stating that Elvis is alive, that aliens are abducting us all, etc. Most of them are obvious rubbish. Equinox 21:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
LX made POV edits to vaccination once again.[3] -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Also included a POV context label when adding an otherwise (I'm assuming) sound Swedish definition.[4] -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is getting a bit out of hand... —CodeCat 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Found a third instance in this Hindi entry. I'm going through Category:Pseudoscience to see if there are any others. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Although I don't dislike LoXi I think it might be wise to remove her admin flag at this point. Equinox 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It's getting kind of rediculous. I just found diff, and more recently Ungoliant issued a block for diff. —CodeCat 02:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Now she is changing users’ rights without nominating them at WT:WL ([5]). I’m not going to revert her again, but I’m registering the abuse here to be used as evidence in the eventual desysoping vote (frankly, I’ve lost hope and think it’s going to happen sooner or later). — Ungoliant (falai) 03:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't even deserve to be autopatrolled yet. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Your editing has improved greatly since then; keep it up and you will be whitelisted soon. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for making this remark. That is a great confidence builder. (: Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)