Wiktionary talk:Vandalism in progress

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Completed blocks section[edit]

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)


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)

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


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

Possibly asking ClueBot to be ported over here to help with the vandalism?[edit]

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)

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)

adding new entries[edit]

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)

Unified. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish users (info)[edit]

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

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)

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

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. -- 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


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

Please add:
Robbie SWE (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive 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. - 18:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
@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. - 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
(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)
@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. - 21:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, let me address my deletion of the entry. Unlike what User: 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)