Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress: difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→New alerts: +1 stale incident Tag: Reverted |
→New alerts: Ugh, Nazis (using AjaxEdit) Tag: Manual revert |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* {{vandal|BesNutGeb}} --[[User:Leonidlednev|Leonidlednev]] ([[User talk:Leonidlednev|talk]]) 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
* {{vandal|BesNutGeb}} --[[User:Leonidlednev|Leonidlednev]] ([[User talk:Leonidlednev|talk]]) 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*: {{ping|Leonidlednev}}: See [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#Obomber|WT:RFC#Obomber]]. This is not as simple as it looks: There's no denying that most of their quotes are crap (I think my comments there laid it out farily well), but Wiktionary is about usage, not reliable sources. The fact is, we have entries for terms that are slanderous, libelous, and even hate speech. Our [[WT:CFI|Criteria for inclusion]] allows that- but only if they can be shown to be in use by means of the sourcing specified in CFI. In the case of derogatory terms that only someone who despises their referent would ever use, that means amassing quotes from biased, partisan sources saying awful things. The trick is selecting quotes that ilustrate the usage without going into other issues and presenting them in a NPOV manner. This person was obviously unfamiliar with all of that (they were close enough to a banned user for me to run a checkuser check on them, but they're completely unrelated on the backend) and indiscriminantly swept up everything from everywhere. I suspect there's a lot of POV behind what they're doing, and we may indeed need to block them eventually, but they haven't had time to show whether they can clean up their act. It's a judgment call, so I'm not going to argue with anyone who decides differently- I'm just not ready to act yet, myself. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
*: {{ping|Leonidlednev}}: See [[Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#Obomber|WT:RFC#Obomber]]. This is not as simple as it looks: There's no denying that most of their quotes are crap (I think my comments there laid it out farily well), but Wiktionary is about usage, not reliable sources. The fact is, we have entries for terms that are slanderous, libelous, and even hate speech. Our [[WT:CFI|Criteria for inclusion]] allows that- but only if they can be shown to be in use by means of the sourcing specified in CFI. In the case of derogatory terms that only someone who despises their referent would ever use, that means amassing quotes from biased, partisan sources saying awful things. The trick is selecting quotes that ilustrate the usage without going into other issues and presenting them in a NPOV manner. This person was obviously unfamiliar with all of that (they were close enough to a banned user for me to run a checkuser check on them, but they're completely unrelated on the backend) and indiscriminantly swept up everything from everywhere. I suspect there's a lot of POV behind what they're doing, and we may indeed need to block them eventually, but they haven't had time to show whether they can clean up their act. It's a judgment call, so I'm not going to argue with anyone who decides differently- I'm just not ready to act yet, myself. [[User:Chuck Entz|Chuck Entz]] ([[User talk:Chuck Entz|talk]]) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
* {{vandal|2601:244:8380:4d56:445:6baa:d227:8060 }} It's a stale edit, but a month ago someone wrote some Nazi shit in [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Vergasungskeller&diff=prev&oldid=76200302 this edit]. Request someone add the article [[Vergasungskeller]] to their watchlist for further pro-Nazi vandalism. [[User:TParis|TParis]] ([[User talk:TParis|talk]]) 01:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:09, 23 October 2023
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.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
New alerts
- P. Sovjunk (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) Wonderfool adding deliberate rubbish again, e.g. [1] and [2]. After that silly vote I don't know how we are meant to handle him. Equinox ◑ 23:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- He self-reverted both within a few seconds. No need for action imo. This, that and the other (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- In case he vandals again, you know what you must do... CitationsFreak (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- See history of four-way cock. Equinox ◑ 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry about that. I got overexcited P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- See history of four-way cock. Equinox ◑ 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- BesNutGeb (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) --Leonidlednev (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Leonidlednev: See WT:RFC#Obomber. This is not as simple as it looks: There's no denying that most of their quotes are crap (I think my comments there laid it out farily well), but Wiktionary is about usage, not reliable sources. The fact is, we have entries for terms that are slanderous, libelous, and even hate speech. Our Criteria for inclusion allows that- but only if they can be shown to be in use by means of the sourcing specified in CFI. In the case of derogatory terms that only someone who despises their referent would ever use, that means amassing quotes from biased, partisan sources saying awful things. The trick is selecting quotes that ilustrate the usage without going into other issues and presenting them in a NPOV manner. This person was obviously unfamiliar with all of that (they were close enough to a banned user for me to run a checkuser check on them, but they're completely unrelated on the backend) and indiscriminantly swept up everything from everywhere. I suspect there's a lot of POV behind what they're doing, and we may indeed need to block them eventually, but they haven't had time to show whether they can clean up their act. It's a judgment call, so I'm not going to argue with anyone who decides differently- I'm just not ready to act yet, myself. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)