Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress

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

• 173.91.8.87 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) Crude additions - Amgine/ ^t·e 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• 66.11.109.98 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) Nonsense additions —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 02:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Leucostictes (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)}=PaulBustion88 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)? See Dan Polansky's comments on Leucostictes' talk page, which make some pretty solid points. What does everyone else think? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. I had considered the possibility before (because of pedophile) but did not look into it or give it a second thought.

  2. Dan's detective work is formidable. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  I think we could really use a local checkuser. But in lieu of that, I think this is probably the real deal. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  I've been having my doubts about this user's contributions. And I must say, I'm really impressed by Dan's detective work. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  Why is this here? There’s making garbage edits and then there’s making questionable decisions. Take this to wt:Requests for checkuser and delete this request. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  We don't have any checkusers at the moment. We could go ask the stewards, I suppose. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I already said I'm PaulBustion88 on my talk page. Weird you feel a need to do a check user now. I also pointed out I had been unblocked on another account, PaulBustion87 by ISMETA but I forgot the password to that account. But I don't care about editing here anymore so just go ahead and block me. Leucostictes (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• 47.20.180.129 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks), looks like BedrockPerson (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) (possibly also יבריב (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) under a new IP address) evading a ban, with the same pattern of edit-warring. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  Blocked. I'm pretty sure that's BedrockPerson, who is not the same as יבריב. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  107.77.226.92 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) @Wikitiki89, Vorziblix, same person? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  See also 107.77.226.227 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks). I can't speak to content, but I don't see any red flags. We had a disagreement/edit war over misuse of the {{delete}} template, but they seem sincere and serious. This is a mobile IP that's in a block that's been used by a rather persistent vandal (of the thinly-disguised-sadism school of practical jokers), so the picture is a bit muddy, but there's nothing about the IP to link it with BedrockPerson. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  The red flag is that he reverted my revert of an edit by יבריב at מצה. --WikiTiki89 11:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• 78.3.147.117 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks), I just blocked them for 3 hours so that we can get to the bottom of this. It seems that they took a look at the RFD forum and decided to create entries which were deemed inapproriate. They also added protologisms. Can I nuke their contributions? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think this is a BrunoMed sock. They were originally blocked for mass-creating poor-quality entries. I think we should take one of the tree entries to RFD as a test, and delete them all if everyone agrees that they're SOP. I'm reluctant to nuke all their entries without more solid evidence of who they really are. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I suspected that it might be the case. The "X tree" discussion is underway, so I guess we'll see what happens. --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• TNMPChannel has been using IP addresses to edit Malay and Indonesian entries since their block. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And English again. —suzukaze (t・c) 05:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I was waiting for Equinox to weigh in on this before acting. He blocked the main IP for a week, which I widened into a range block to cover the other IPs they've been using. I have my doubts as to whether someone this clueless should be allowed to edit here. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • He/she is welcome to still edit Chinese entries. We (or I at least) will fix them. I'd rather someone make a start on these idiom entries, which can often be a bit daunting for editors. Wyang (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • It may be just because I'm conveniently ignorant on the quality of their non-English edits, but there seem to be more problems with their English edits. They claim to be a native English speaker, but they're certainly not very good with the language. I suspect their entire experience with English idioms is whatever reference work they're copying from- I just hope we're not going to find out that they've been copying everything word for word. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems like they are trying to simultaneously use their registered account and an IP address: the IP enlarged a warning on TNMPChannel's talk page... but also geolocates to Selangor, Malaysia. The time frame of the IP edits also fits snugly within a gap in TNMPChannel's editing. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Campista1891 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) — I am reminded of PaM. @Chuck Entz, Equinox, does it match up? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think it's PaM. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  BTW: I believe en.WT is currently without CU; @TheDaveRoss was the only active so stewards had to remove the priv. - Amgine/ ^t·e 14:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  Which is hardly news, we've been working on that issue for a while. This particular one was pretty simple to nail down without resorting to CU tools: two accounts and two IPs making very specific types of edits to a very specific set of entries, with the IPs geolocating to a very specific area. The possibility of such associations being due to random chance is mind-bogglingly small. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Not quite. The agenda is different: they seem to be preoccupied with religious calendars in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, and have removed references to other religious calendars. PaM would have added more . Also, I have a hunch that they were editing as 99.194.53.66 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) before they started editing under their current account, and that geolocates to the US. Not all of their edits are bad, but they need to be watched for adding POV/agenda-specific stuff and and removing valid content. I'm still not sure what to do with gray-area edits, and I haven't really gone through their edits that thoroughly. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I think Juantheman96 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) is a much better fit. If memory serves, they overlapped edits with a similar IP, and the mix of decent edits with POV, odd preoccupations and love of oversimplification is very much like this account. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I found the other IP: 99.194.52.254 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks). Fairly easy to find, because they always edit the same entries with the same type of edits, whatever account or IP they use. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• 83.134.111.98 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks), 184.161.131.109 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks), 82.209.155.189 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks)- creating "Spanish" entries derived from Latin that never existed (accidir, fortás, occidir, audir)- range block? DTLHS (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • These are all varying in the high-order 8 bits- way too much collateral damage: just to cover both 82.x.x.x and 83.x.x.x would mean blocking 33,554,432 addresses out of 4,294,967,296 in the entire IPv4 address space. To get 184.x.x.x at the same time, you'd have to block all of the IPv4 addresses (pro-tip: not a good idea... =8-0 ). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• 2A01:CB00:4C3:D500:6568:6F41:5A33:DB1C (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) Seems like they're trying to help, but keep on changing {{der}} and {{bor}} to {{etyl}}. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 15:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• 179.7.223.126 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) This user has been systematically removing all mention of Dutch Low Saxon and German Low German, merging them into one language, especially in translations. They've removed the Dutch Low Saxon translations in doing so. —CodeCat 21:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  I've been tracking their edits and I reverted when they merged the translations. I'll keep an eye on them (I suppose not all of their contributions are bad, considering that they have added missing translations) — if they continue the same modus operandi I'll block them. PS: just realised that I've been reverting another anon's changes to Low German entries; 179.7.215.172 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks). Maybe the same person? --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  Both geolocate to Lima, Peru, so, yes, they're the same person. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• 103.242.217.178 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) still has some edits remaining in the mainspace. Could someone check up on those? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• There is an anon adding fake Interlingua descendants to Latin words. They look believable, but are not actually Interlingua. Special:Contributions/107.77.225.226 is an example. Feel free to ping me if you need someone to check Interlingua additions. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• 96.48.0.14 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) I believe this users has been discussed before, but I'm still skeptical of this user's behavior. —JohnC5 05:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Where's the discussion? I think that they have no clue what they're doing and should be blocked. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I can't seem to find the discussion now, though I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere. Maybe someone else will know. —JohnC5 06:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#Edits_by_User:96.48.0.14? —suzukaze (t・c) 06:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• 2A01:CB00:4C3:D500:84BD:3C2C:D69F:9D6F (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks), 80.12.27.172 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) Vandalising Azeri etymologies intentionally or not. I warned the first IP not to make unwanted changes to the etymology sections. He is consistently replacing {{inh}} and {{der}} in favor of {{etyl}}. With another IP he reverted my change and summarized the change as: "Vandalism per unsourced claim that actual form was not at any stage borrowed from an ancestor or sibling language (WP:Etymology)". Various linked IPs can be seen at qız

  I believe he is also behind various IPs removing Orkhon script provided for no reason. --Anylai (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)