Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress

This page is intended to get administrator attention quickly for dealing with issues related to vandalism such as blocking, page-protection, revision deletion, etc.

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.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

• Wilhelmlux (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) Very low quality edits to Latin entries, especially with raw, untemplated references. I have already tried to get this editor to mend his editing but he didn't mind a jot my telling him (at User talk:Wilhelmlux#about your editing). See recent edits I have made to dēfectus, for which I don't know where he had found some of the data... His edits on punctus (which he took for punctum) shows he does not know what he is doing. I tried reverting/monitoring his past edits after he seemed to have stopped but he's back at it again and patrolling is no hobby of mine. Why is this ignored ? @Surjection Saumache (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• IJ13IJ13 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) This user has been repeatedly vandalizing, by adding his own creations and protologisms in Korean-related articles. While this has been neglected for a long time due to the limited number of users contributing to Korean-related entries, I believe this serious vandalism requires swift action. (Other users have complained on the User talk, but the user is not responding. For more details, please refer to User talk:IJ13IJ13.) Since most of his contributions are mere protologism, I think it's better to delete them all (even though there are very few normal edits). However, the number of these fake words is so large that I can't submit a deletion request for each one. What are some possible solutions? — This unsigned comment was added by Kafuka... (talk • contribs).

  Could you start a discussion in WT:BP? I've suspected their edits were likely to add made up terms. Ideally we could have a list of their edits/entries that are likely to have some substance and delete/revert the rest wholesale. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the advice. I found out that the user just removed part of my deletion requests. I believe they should be blocked before we can organize the matter. Also, I have reviewed their contributions and found that they are not as numerous as initially thought. I believe I can resolve the issue by adding a deletion request to each article or replacing it with appropriate content, so expanding on the discussion further seems unnecessary. I am prepared to respond if there is an objection to any deletion request I added. Kafuka... (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikti7onary is made68 by people like yo78 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) – Long-term abuse. BMX on wheels XReport --LuniZunie (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-96568-0 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks) Wanton griefter, especially targetting suffixes and suffixed words, see demo- and avehō. P.S. why isn't my previous report being taken care of? User:Wilhelmlux is still running rampant and uglying dozens of innocent pages. See my new warning on his talk page. Saumache (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have seen your reports but I haven't intervened because I don't know anything about these languages. I'm sure that others feel the same or similarly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's not that bad as he is not that active, I come back every so often to clean his contributions when I see a maimed page bearing his trademark, I'd rather he would listen and not get ousted but he won't.

  As for the IP's intents, edits on demo- make them clear enough to not necessitate one Latinate. Saumache (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is this reviewer's nasty comments still not being curtailed? My edits are made in earnest and there is absolutely nothing malicious about them. Innocent pages that have no references when met, are properly referenced with at least 2. Expanding the understanding of Latin words that are obscure, I believe, is beneficial. And it is an absolute false accusation to accuse me of vandalism. Wilhelmlux (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  better check the spelling of grifter and to accuse my of swindling is just another example of this reviewer's penchant for name calling that is not collegial or in the spirit of honest criticism. If improvement of the content of the database is the overall objective, then I have tried my best to do so. How is there swindling or uglyfying involved. Perhaps a more mature critic is what is desperately needed. Wilhelmlux (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  In stating that my contributions are only cosmetic, you are belittling the essence of the contributions themselves. What has brought you to this state of calling people names and denigrating their work? That is the tenor of all of your replies to me. My contributions, again, are taken from a variety of sources, which for some reason you have also looked askance at. I have referenced my contributions without fail--have you likewise referenced your edits? Wilhelmlux (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a forum for discussing edits. Please do that on a relevant talk page for consensus or on a user talk page for any persistent issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I blocked the anonymous account. All their edits are clearly intended to insert misinformation that's wrong in ways that are hard to spot. As for Wilhelmlux: this page is for emergencies that need to be acted on immediately by admins. Please don't clutter it with complaints about low-volume contributors who are making good-faith mistakes. The Beer parlour is a better venue for that.Chuck Entz (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, though I'll let others work with stubornness itself, the guy has clearly antagonized me across our little chats, I don't know what I could do over at the Beer parlour I wasn't able to either on their talk page or here. I don't otherwise believe letting good-faithed-bad-edits editors running wild is a good or nice thing. I'll still be reverting/editing ALL their edits, I hope this makes them either change their ways or stop altogether. Saumache (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]