Vandalism is the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure or symbol. It can be done as an expression of contempt, creativity, or both. The term refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly looting the city of Rome in 455. The term was coined in January 1794 during the French Revolution, by Henri Gregoire, constitutional bishop of Blois, in his report directed to the Republican Convention, where he used word ''Vandalisme'' to describe some aspects of the behaviour of the republican army. == Official vandalism == [[Image:Abou Simbel.jpg|thumb|left|222px|Abu Simbel: an official portrait sculpture ritually defaced]] Throughout history, the ritual destruction of monuments of a previous government or power has been one of the greatest symbols showing the attempt at transition of power (''illustration, below left''). In Rome ''damnatio memoriae'' ("damnation of his memory") was normally expressed by erasing the name of a hated individual from inscriptions and removing or replacing statues or replacing just their heads after their death and subsequent disgrace. ''Damnatio memoriae'' was effected after their death by the rivals and heirs of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus and Elagabulus. After the Emperor Caracalla had his co-Emperor Publius Septimius Geta assassinated, all depictions or references to Geta were systematically destroyed as part of a ''damnatio memoriae''. Faces and genitals of surviving Greek and Roman sculpture often show how they have been systematically attacked. In palimpsests, text has been washed off parchment that have been overwritten with new text; the existence of effaced manuscripts that were not subsequently overwritten reveals an element of vandalism in this process. In Egypt, the return of the priests of Amun to power after the religious innovations of Akhenaten was accompanied by desecration of the pharaoh's tomb and the ritual obliteration of his image from temple reliefs and inscriptions. This is official vandalism. Recent cases of vandalism in this vein include the toppling and destruction of Soviet monuments after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Taliban destruction of Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and the :Image:Saddamstatue.jpg of a Saddam Hussein statue by the multinational force in Iraq. In a country with an unpopular dictator, vandalism of the leader's portraits and other elements of his personality cult can be a common form of dissent. Vandalism of Jewish properties and Jewish-owned businesses was part of the Nazi program, surfacing in the widespread, coordinated vandalism of ''Kristallnacht'' the night of November 9 – 10, 1938, when shopwindows were smashed all over Nazi Germany. == Vandalism as crime == Private citizens commit vandalism when they willfully destroy the property of others or the commons. This type of vandalism includes graffiti and is often committed by alienated youth. [[Image:Graffitiforvandalismarticle.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Graffiti tagging is an art with roots in vandalism]] With the rise and development of the World Wide Web came unauthorized and undesired modification of Web pages. During the late 1990s, malicious young computer criminals took to vandalizing Web sites ''en masse'', sometimes using computer worm to do so. (See, e.g., Hacked By Chinese! for one famous example.) Web forums, wikis, and other resources that are deliberately made publicly editable can also be vandalized. This is sometimes done by persons with a hostility toward the site or its operator, but also by Internet trolls or others simply expressing contempt for other people's work. Some vandalism qualifies as culture jamming or sniggle — artistic statements in their own right that are illegal and destructive from the point of view of the legal system, but are done with a creative and artistic impulse. Graffiti art qualifies in some cases at least, also billboard liberation and crop circles. ==See also== *Vandalism in Ireland *Iconoclasm *[http://graffiti.org Graffiti.org] ---- ''Vandalism (electronic music) is also an electronic music act from Australia. Crimes simple:Vandal
==Discussion== Any expert in dealing with vandalism here? The newly started wiki, [http://www.wikichristian.com wikichristian] is under attack from vandals which forced the sysops to protect almost all the pages, defeating the purpose of a wiki! As a sysop at wikiChristian, I am desperately looking for good advice. Help appreciated. Thanks a million. -Prab R Tumpati, MD Not to be a humourless wad, but the "before" and "after" pictures in this article seem unnecessarily silly. User:Ashibaka User talk:Ashibaka 23:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Agreed. Although I did get a laugh of them. --User:Tothebarricades.tk 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::I thought they were amusing. But they are silly. User:Pikpik 22:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---- You're not welcome to characterize Wikipedia's policy on vandalism, Cunctator --LMS :Why not? And was there actually anything biased or inappropriate in my text, or do you just dislike me? --The Cunctator ---- :willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others. Destruction of something that is nobody's property can also constitute vandalism. :More recent cases of Vandalism include the Taliban destruction of Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan. Anyone's going to write about destruction of Communists statuary in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 ? User:Taw ---- : More recent cases of Vandalism include the :Taliban destruction of Buddhist statuary in :Afghanistan. Removed. It was act of propaganda not vandalism. ::Was it really propaganda? or was it anti-idolatry? I think the Taliban would say the latter. Not agreeing or condoning, but think it's important to note the difference. Personally, I'd call it vandalism, but then I like my churches elaborate....User:JHK ::They wanted to show everyone that they are more Muslim and Quran-following that anyone else is. That seems to be the purpose of this action. --User:Taw The justification for removal is fallacious. Propaganda and vandalism need not be exclusive. One can commit an act of vandalism for purposes of propaganda, which seems to have been the case here. I propose restoring the example. --User:AV I agree with that. --User:Seb If any one is interested this site has a statement by a Taliban ambassador on why the statues were destroyed and although arguably the action was justified, still it remains 'vandalism' in the sense listed. Perhaps then an addition saying that vandalism is not necessarily a bad thing? Anyway here's the link: http://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/syed_hashmi.shtml User:David Byron ------- In order to expand this entry to something beyond just a dictionary entry (it is a little more than that, but not much) I think someone (with more knowledge then me) should write a bit about the history of vandalism and its conflicting position in society. Tag art, street art, and lots of other stuff are commonly called vandalism, but have a whole history and meaning seperate from the prejorative description. More importantly, there is a lot of data out there on the subject from Roman times to the present, and it would mean a meatier article. ---- I was just thinking - shouldn't the Vandalism in Ireland bit be a different page altogether. Its not relevant to the actual entry on vandalism, but is an important entry all the same. User:Ludraman 17:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ----- I do not think the article is balanced, although I am kind of reluctant to make any changes before discussion. The article mentions Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues, and a specific case of "Irish vandalism" - but does not mention at all communist vandalism - the destruction of tens of thousands of churches and "czarist monuments" on Russia alone, not mentioning the same activity everywhere where communists came to power. Instead, a rather ritual destruction of several tasteless, obnoxious communist monuments is given as an example of vandalism. Many of the communist monuments in Russia are moved to museums, but most of them remain where they were. An especially disgusting case is the huge aluminum "Mother Motherland" in Kiev, that insults the ancient city - it is itself a kind of graffiti and vandalism - imagine a 300-feet tall aluminum Jesus Christ over Rome, and you'll get the picture. Two specific cases of well publicised monument are worth noting: the demolition of Dzerzhinsky's monument in Moscow, and the demolition of Saddam's monument in Baghdad. Both are notorious torturers, and there should be some limits in preserving this kind of monuments, right? Say, someone erected a Hitler monument in Chicago in 1932; would the monument survive the WWII? Hardly. In general, to avoid politics, I would suggest to remove any mentioning of historical monument demolitions done by governments or political forces. Or else it would make sense to add the destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima as acts of vandalism. [[User:Vpatryshev|VPatryshev] - vpatryshev@yahoo.com ==Basis for a future rewrite== Vandalism is an act of cultural violence, much like the raping of women. It ''always'' has justifications— if you ask the vandal: they may be religious, social, political, artistic. The justifications are interesting in themselves and all need subsections, but they don't affect the main entry. Much material has been suppressed here (see History) and needs to be more neutrally re-evaluated. Recently Wikipedia material may have been needlessly suppressed as "plagiarized," simply because it appears at Wiki mirror sites, I believe. User:Wetman 00:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Needless to say, the cautious reader will be aware that it was not I who reverted this chuckleheaded article.) For a familiar denial of the descriptive assessment that vandalism is an act of cultural violence, (as is rape, in fact), see the following note of User:TheGrza. People who imagine a distinction between Vandalism (capitalized) and vandalism (lowercase) aren't in the habit of reading printed history ''or'' sociology. Would someone please put a disambiguating notice at the head that this entry does not concern the actual Vandals of the 5th century? An adult discussion of political-religious vandalism might begin by mentioning the defaced monuments of Akhnaten and the wave of vandalism that swept the Roman Empire in the wake of the Theodosius I. That's, um, a hint.19:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::(''email to Wetman, posted here, where it is more generally useful'')Any page that deals with the topic of vandalism must take into account the other reasons beyond pointless destruction that inspire such acts. To compare them to "rapists" is ludicrious and insulting, especially to those who use it as an artform and a public forum. I appreciate that the article was possibly slanted to include this opinion, and I apologize. I always try to do my best to keep Wikipedia from containing any bias and I didn't truly cover the other side. To whitewash all vandalism as "rape" ,as you put it, shows the opposite bias. ==Response to the rewrite== The article was in shambles, rambling back and forth with no real direction and including maybe the worst possible picture I have yet seen in a Wikipedia article. I agree that it was slanted toward the point of view that vandalism isn't wrong and I suppose that was me just trying to be objective and going too far. The article should not have been reverted to its originial form, however, without taking into account the work and research I have done on this page, but reshaped with your own attempt to bring objectivity to the process. As for the subsections, I do not believe that they constitute their own article because, sans Graffiti, they do not have enough information that is unique to their existence e.g. an article on vandalism in the form of "stenciling" would appear to be a stub with all reasonable information included. These other POV on vandalism should be recognized by those who may find your comparison to rape to be not only insulting, but biased and extreme, with no real connection to the work itself. As for the suppression of material, it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of this article. There was information that was taken verbatim from another webpage (NOT a mirror) and I deleted it and rewrote the information into the story in a non-plagiarized way. The only material in any way "suppressed" was the article I wrote being tossed to the winds for no other reason then the lack of willingness of Wikipedians to contribute pieces to articles rather than revert them to their former embarassing selves.
-- 10:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) '''But, wait! There's more...''' The idea that because there has been large scale and important historical vandalism is important, and the idea of vandalism being, as you described it, "Cultural Violence" is another important idea that I agree should be in the article. My only point is that the article was nothing more than incomplete and by its incompletion biased, a regrettable situation. The article should be rewritten but with NPOV, taking into account the different types of vandalism, not just your "cultural violence". --User:TheGrza 22:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) ::My point is simply that all entrries must begin with the historic and central meaning, in this case of ''vandalism''' --then it may move on to modern extensions of the term. But to argue ''whether'' vandalism is cultural violence (as rape is) or not-- well, I haven't the inclination... But, as I said, it ''always'' has justifications— User:Wetman 08:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) == I am sorry, TheGrza == I'm sorry TheGrza - my browser was having a hard time connecting to wikipedia and I ended up doing what I didn't mean to do. Could anyone please rollback my edit? (12:22, 21 Sep 2004 62.29.254.81 (reverted changes by TheGrza)) I could put it back to TheGrza's version but I don't want to clutter the history. Thanks and please accept my apologies. == This picture probably not appropriate == Is the current picture (Graffitiforvandalismarticle.jpg) really "graffiti vandalism"? Are we positive that it's vandalism and not a work of art, drawn with permission, on the side of a building? In any case it's not a great illustration of "typical" graffiti vandalism. There were plenty of other pictures on the Melbourne site that would qualify. I'll volunteer to pick one (with the aim of showing that something was vandalized) if someone can attest that they gave permission to post other pictures from the site. User:Tempshill 20:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Good point. A new caption is more accurate, I hope. But add examples of clear vandalism. User:Wetman 23:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I was the one who got the picture from the folks over at Melbourne Graffiti and if you'll notice the grass at the bottom and the door on the right side of the picture, that is a warehouse. I picked that particular one because it is graffiti vandalism and it looks better then most of their other pictures. --Grza\">User_Talk:TheGrza">User:TheGrza|TheGrza\">User Talk:TheGrza 04:25, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC) == Closeinch's link(s) == What do you mean the Sayville link is "Spam" That is an interesting article. In addition, there are no other links. The page that links to vandalism is appropriate relevant. It is NOT spam. (Posted by User:Closeinch2) :That link, like the others you've been adding to various pages (such as Prostitution), is utterly worthless. Aside from being short, there are no references, no attempt at context or coherence, and contains some pretty strong allegations. It calls Teddy Roosevelt and Melissa Joan Hart vandals, the latter simply because (as a child) she "broke a thermometer and didn't tell the teacher". The images have all been ripped from other places, also unsourced, and the page (you) even state the images are not of the actual events. All of your links look to be complete bunk: I challenge anyone (other than yourself) to point out something ''useful'' in any of them. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a joke rag. :As for the link not being spam, it certainly qualifies as spam once one considers Special:Contributions/Closeinch2, Special:Contributions/Closeinch, and Special:Contributions/206.148.128.86, and Special:Contributions/204.193.6.90. There's at least one other IP you've been editing under, your sole contributions being the addition of your "Sayville hisotry" links, and the insertion of questionable references: I'm also not the one reverting these (e.g., see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Urban_legend&diff=7947078&oldid=7753692]). Please understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, nor is it a repository of external links. If there's something of value in the links you're trying to insert, why not integrate that information into Wikipedia rather than link to it externally? -- User:Hadal 04:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Self reference == Does the first sentence violate wikipedia's policy of self-reference? : Presumably, yes... but for some reason my mod to add the selfref template was reverted. User:Stoive 23:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC) I took it out because it wasn't a template, it was a link to template deletion. When there is a template to put in, I'm all for it.--User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 00:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC) : ok... the rfd has now been removed from the selfref template, so I'll stick it back in. User:Stoive 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC) == Poll: What version of "Vandalism" article do you prefer? == Please dont vandalise this poll. You may add as poll option your favorite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&action=history&limit=500&offset=0 version] of the vandalism article and vote for it. Please do not erase votes. === Vandalism === # User:Faethon387 14:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) === [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=10761093 Version dated 07:56, 4 Mar 2005] === ===[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=9930665 Version dated 04:58, 4 Feb 2005 ]=== === [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=293710 Initial version] === An Article Version in the spirit of the Vandals; Cruel and hostile to any artistic jpegs pictures, a version willful of destruction and defacement. #User:Acusilaus 11:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: This is an ex-Faethon account. This account is no longer public User:Faethon40 13:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Correct, because somebody has gone in and changed the password to the account. --User:Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Any chance you guys will stop your edit war?== Perhaps you can move your poll to a sub-user page and link to it from this page in an unobtrusive page and we won't have this constant reverting? Also, User:Michael_Snow is right, keep the link off the actual page. --User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 02:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) :The so-called poll is frivolous. One of the choices is an example of vandalism, not an article about it, and another is the shoddy stub that first existed on this page. As far as I can tell, there's no serious active dispute about the content that would warrant a poll anyway. If I'm wrong about that, then the nature of the dispute needs to be discussed here on the talk page. :By the way, all of the accounts that are posting this "poll" are designed to be disruptive because they use "public passwords", which are against Wikipedia policy. For information on the disruption caused by the person responsible, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson and its talk page. --User:Michael Snow 07:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: If you dont like the poll option, you may add your favorite and vote for it. There is no policy that prohibits public accounts, but there is a policy that prohibits deletion of votes and quotes. And I am not Iasson but Faethon. User:Faethon40 07:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::If you create an account, you're responsible for the security of your password. Disclosing an account password is considered disruptive, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. If the password is released or can easily be discovered, it will be changed. This is established Wikipedia practice. --User:Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::: I am afraid that you are wrong. ArbCom is about to judge (based on existing policies), NOT about creating policies or legislate. Policies are created by community consensus, NOT by 8-9 persons that happens to be Arbitrators. The above decision of ArbCom is illegal. Thats why, both the arbitrators and the admins that support them should be punished. They abused the power that has been given to them, and they tried, against policy and community consensus, to legislate. User:Faethon41 07:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::There is a consensus, the Arbitration Committee was simply formulating an expression of the principle. CheeseDreams' password was changed before the ruling was made, and by someone who is neither an arbitrator nor an admin. Nor is this the first time passwords have been changed when they become publicly known, see User:Tim Starling/Password matches. --User:Michael Snow 17:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::: Its not the same! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling/Password_matches Tim Starling's list] is about "''groups of usernames share the same passwords''." means ONE person having multiple alternative user-names. A typical sockpuppet troll. My Faethon case is about ONE account, owned by many persons. You cannot tell for sure whether there is consensus on that or not, but let me give you a similar to my case example, taken from real life: Suppose you have left 10000 dollars in the middle of the road. Someone is going to steal them, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing. The same happens in my case, I published my password, and it is very possible someone is going to revert it, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing publicaly known passwords. ::::::Let me remind you that in real life there is a consensus NOT to steal the 10000 dollars you have found in the middle of the road, and the one who steals those dollars should be punished, if caught. And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalise an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit. They are very usefull, primarily because they obliterate wikipedians' inflated ego, especially the whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as beeing professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day. Thats why I believe there is consensus among healthy wikipedians to protect guest accounts and maybe punish any whimsical wikipedian writer who may change the guest account's password because of hate or any other pathological reason. ::::::IMHPO (in my humble public opinion) if we really want to know whether there is a consensus or not for accounts owned by more than one real persons, we have to put a vote for it. In any case, it is the community (or Jimbo himself) that has to legislate (or not legislate) about public accounts case (known also as guest accounts in other communities), and NOT the ArbCom! User:Aedesius 08:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::: "And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalise an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit" - this sounds rather like sophistry to me. One potential drawback of the 'public account' scheme as proposed is that such an arrangement makes it ''easier'' for vandals to get away scot-free, because they aren't uniquely identifiable. As for the stuff about "whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as beeing professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day", and the statement that "healthy wikipedians" agree with you, that's a horrible position to take, not least because you are accusing me of being unhealthy. -User:Ashley Pomeroy 16:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::: I said that a whimsical-type wikipedian writer thinking himself as beeing a professional writer has an inflated ego, but I didnt say that he is considered as unhealthy! I characterized as unhealthy the persons who chase public accounts and revert their passwords and quotes without those accounts to commit any type of vandalism or illegal action and whithout of course beeing any kind of real danger for wikipedia (for obvious reasons). Its like puting in jail someone , just because you think he/she may commit a crime, before the crime is commited! This is unhealthy and the persons thinking like that have (IMHPO) a mental disorder, similar to Tinfoil hat persons. Unhealthy persons have also another tendency, they always tend to group eachother and form a mob, then they start to oppress and ban healthy persons, in order to form their unhealthy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majoritarianism&oldid=9257979#Variations_and_concept_in-depth initialized loose majority]. User:Aeimnestus 07:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::The "logic" that User:Iasson uses (yes, it's you, you're really not fooling anyone) doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry, since it's completely incoherent. And as for the statement that "healthy wikipedians" agree with you, well, since no one publically (and probably no one anywhere) agrees with AT ALL, then either the group "healthy wikipedians" has a membership of one, or the so-called consensus is purely the product of your imagination. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::: I am also suspecting that Iasson uses sometimes my public account to advertise his stupid peculiar voting system, but I can assure you that I am not Iasson (although I may agree with him in some issues). There are plenty of forums around internet that have guest accounts. The fact that the unhealthy initialized loose majority of contemporary wikipedians bans consistently everyone who thinks that guest accounts are cool, this does not mean that there is noone who believes that. User:Aeimnestus 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::God, this is pathetic. Iasson, you are fooling no one. Nobody believes your crackpot voting theories, your transparent rationalizations for "public accounts", and most especially not your pathetic parade of badly disguised sockpuppets. No one. If this continues, people will become annoyed enough to institute disciplinary proceedings and give you the boot, and all your bluster and logic-chopping will not do you one teeny bit of good. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 13:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::: I repeat, I am not Iasson, I am Faethon. I have not sockpupets but a single (guest) account with a public password. You and your unhealthy friends are the ones who have stolen my previous guest accounts, and you are now the owners of at least 50 sockpuppets. And of course you are using them to vandalize wikipedia in order to accuse me. But I am not responsible for your vandalisms! I am only responsible for my single public account, and I am commited to revert any vandalisms done through this single public account I own, and not through the rest ones. You are a pathetic clan! I just said that you are an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majoritarianism&oldid=9257979#Variations_and_concept_in-depth initialized loose tyranic majority], that bans consistenlty everyone who believes that public accounts are cool, then you have the audacity to claim that there is noone who believes that! And now, predictably, you are planning to give me the boot, to prove to everybody who exactly you are. User:Aelianus Tacticus 08:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::: ''I repeat, I am not Iasson, I am Faethon. I have not sockpupets but a single (guest) account with a public password''. Iasson, old son, it's not just that you're a liar, but such a completely incompetent one that I find most amusing. Nobody "stole" your so-called public accounts -- you gave them away -- and vandals aren't taking the "public accounts" for joyrides: they've all been towed to the Wikipedia Impound Lot and aren't going anywhere. Looks like your Project Plausible deniability is a failure, just like your Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Average rule and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quadratic rule nonsense. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 21:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::: Calton, I think you misunderstand my motivation. Its NOT Plausible deniability. I am responsible for whatever it is said through my public account. My responsibility is of the sort of the responsibility Jimbo Wales has for whatever it is said to his wikipedia site (although in a much much more smaller scale). I am not going to accept any kind of vandalism action that may happens through my single public account, and I am commited to check it regularly and revert anything illegal or against rough consensus policy. And of course, although I may deny that I said something as a person, I am not denying the responsibility I have for whatever it is said through my public account. ::::::::::::: By the way, as long as I am not always online, I am searching for responsible persons to take care of my Faethon account and revert as fast as possible any vandalism that may happens when I am absent, and create as fast as possible the next Faethon account in case the Faethon password is robbed. If you know such a person willing to protect my single guest account from the vandals, please tell me, in order to nominate him as a Faethon administrator. Also I am planning to create a Faethon policy that will determine Faethon's behavior and limits. Any wikipedia editor that is not a sockpuppet is welcome to vote for it, so you are also welcome. User:Aelius Aristides 07:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Go away, Iasson. Fast, slow, in a huff, protesting your innocence, chopping logic in your fractured English -- however you want to do it, just go. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 23:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) You misunderstand the point about Tim Starling's list. The point is that for one of those groups of accounts, the password was discovered, therefore it was changed. Attempts to have "role accounts" or "public accounts" have consistently been rejected for at least the past two years. This, and the opinions of everyone besides Iasson/Faethon who has commented on the matter, demonstrates a community consensus that logged-in editors must accept some responsibility for maintaining the security of their accounts. Changing compromised passwords is a routine precaution, not rooted in any hate or pathology. --User:Michael Snow 06:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Effaced == Effaced is not the correct term for what happened in Afghanistan because they didn't fully destroy the statues. The picture that you have now changed twice shows two statues that continue to exist. The definition, taken from ol' dictionary.com, is this. #To rub or wipe out; erase. #To make indistinct as if by rubbing. #To conduct (oneself) inconspicuously. The statues still stand, thus not "wiped" or "rubbed" out, they are not indistinct, they were an attack specifically on religious statues to warn others that various religions would not be tolerated, making them incredibly distinct, and they were hardly inconspicuous. Therefore, defaced is the proper word to use for this picture.--User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 11:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC) : You seem to be referring to the Buddhas of Bamiyan — I edited the caption of :Image:Abou Simbel.jpg on the Vandalism page (see also: Abu Simbel). And I only edited it once; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=13421072&oldid=13377532 change] by an anon to 'defaced' was only made yesterday. If you are referring to :Image:Abou Simbel.jpg, please note that the middle statue ''has'' been completely destroyed from the waist up and is the one the caption is referring to. — User:Davenbelle 12:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC) The point stands; They were smashed up to be a warning, a vandalism tactic, to other groups. Blowing up the middle statue from the waist up does not constitute "erasing", or "conducting oneself inconspicuously" and have been defaced, not effaced.--User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 20:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC) == Incorrectly? == "The term refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly sacked the city of Rome in 455." So the Vandals did NOT sack Rome in 455? Because their article seems to indicate otherwise, as does the main page... : That claim seems to have been added in a more detailed form in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=10987996&oldid=10987952 this edit], but the explanation has been lost in subsequent copyediting. [http://www.athenapub.com/9timelin.htm This page] backs up the claim that they didn't actually sack the city, they just took everything of value (big difference). I guess both pages need some editing, and references. User:Sjorford User talk:Sjorford 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any Wikipedia:Assume good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism, and then Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism with – if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. A as of 2002 study by IBM found that most Wikipedia vandalism is Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version within five minutes. (See [http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history/results.htm official results]) == Types of vandalism == These are the most common forms of vandalism on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism for details on each of these and tips on how to find such edits. ;Wikipedia:Spam: Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion. ;VandalBot: A Wikipedia:Bots that attempts to vandalize or spam ''massive'' amounts of articles (hundreds or thousands), blanking, or adding commercial links. ;Childish vandalism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog&diff=9829910&oldid=9829151 Adding graffiti] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenland&diff=7172688&oldid=7172681 blanking pages]. (The Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Female Cyclist Vandal is an example of this type.) Note that this page, itself, was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&oldid=15034579 blank page vandalized] on June 11, 2005. ;Silly vandalism: Users will sometimes create Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Pelican shit vandal.) ;Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TIME_Magazine%27s_100_most_influential_people_of_2004&diff=4186621&oldid=4182587] which was reverted because the source material is easily available). ;Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) ;User page vandalism: Replacing Wikipedia:User pages with insults, profanity, etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) ;Image vandalism: Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. ;Template vandalism: Adding any of the above to templates. ;Page move vandalism: Moving pages to offensive or nonsense names. Most infamous example was the Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels. ;Redirect vandalism: Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Autofellatio redirect vandal. ;Link vandalism: Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something irrelevant or silly (e.g. Chewbacca defense). == What Vandalism Is Not == Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently: ;Newbie Test: New users who discover the "Edit this page" button want to know if they can really edit any page, so they write something inside just to test it. This is not vandalism! On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the [] template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes.) ;Learning Wiki Markup and Manual of Style: For some users, it takes a while to learn the wiki-based markup, and will spend a little time experimenting with the different ways to make external links, internal links, and other special characters. Rather than condemning them as vandals, just explain to them what our standard style is on the issue in hand—perhaps pointing them towards our documentation at Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the like. ;NPOV Violations: The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. See also: NPOV dispute. ;Bold Edits: Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. That said, the wise Wikipedian tempers boldness with WikiLove. ;Mistakes: Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it. ;Bullying or Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. ;Harassing or Making Personal Attacks: We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. Some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as home page vandalism. However, harassment is not in general vandalism. ;The Unexpected: Just because someone is editing in an unusual way doesn't make him or her a vandal. If someone is making solid edits but writing, "Hi, Mom!" in his or her edit summaries, this doesn't make them an oddball vandal; it makes him or her a newcomer. By all means have a friendly chat about the proper use of edit summaries. Don't blanket revert him/her. Don't block him/her. == See also == * Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress - report current activity * Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism * Wikipedia:Simple vandalism * Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism * Meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles (Humor) Wikipedia vandalism als:Vandal (Wikipedia)
This appears to be another well-intentioned but ultimately not very useful MediaWiki: page. Firstly metadata about an article should not be in the article itself - e.g. it would be very odd to see this vandalism message in a fork of Wikipedia which does not allow editing! So please use it in the talk: namespace only. Also, couldn't a vandal simply remove it? Or are they too thick? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 23:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) Agreed. This page is useless and should be removed.--User:EloquenceUser:Eloquence/CP 23:54, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC) *I'm inclined to agree with Erik. User:Raul654 00:56, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
#redirect Template:Vandalism
A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc. == Was this vandalism? == Template:WikipediaSister, including on the Main Page, was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the be bold rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) :It's not vandalism IMO, but it is against the 3RR User:Dori | User talk:Dori 01:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) :I think the gesture was very nice, but I also think that they need to be told (gently) that breaking the 3RR is definitely frowned upon, and that we try to keep the templates to a minimum because there is not much real estate on the front page. I don't think it was vandalism. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) : No, I don't think it was vandalism. There probably is a grey area for vandalism (e.g. link-spam), but I don't think this falls into it. This is just a Wikipedia editor doing something that they ''thought'' was fine, but which others disagreed with. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 11:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) I find that dates of birth and death are particularly vulnerable to sneaky vandalism. :Definitely not vandalism. Just a disagreement, probably made more difficult by a language barrier (i.e. English not being GerardM's first language.) "Vandalism" should only refer to deliberate defacement. GerardM clearly thought he was being reasonable, although from his comments I couldn't quite understand his rationale. User:Isomorphic 07:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) == ''Anyone'', Can Edit. Threats and Possibilities. == :There are many vague vandalism fears of the endless possibilities of Wikipedian vandalism. One of such fears could be "What if suddenly Wikipedia is discovered by people who don't realize it is created for them also? What if for example, a random High School kid decides that it is funny to post an obscenity on a seemingly scholarly website? What is interesting about this sort of fear and possibility is that, for example, ''that'' teenager would have the most to benefit from this site. Because what people underestimate is that EVERYONE has interests. Some people just don't realize they have the access to information to utilize them. In addition to the fact that person could realize they can have a voice and play an active role in editing biased statements about their demographic. ---- I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material.User:NCdave 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Anyone looking at your edit history can see you're a controversial editor with an agenda, which is shown in articles such as Terri Schiavo and partial-birth abortion. User:TheCustomOfLife 22:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) == Shortcut to this article == I created another shortcut: wp:vand ==POV vandalism== I disagree with the apparent blanket statement that POV edits are not vandalism. There are some cases - particularly where a user continues to restore POV rants that have repeatedly been deleted and go against clearly established consensus - where introduction of POV is indeed vandalism. -- BDAbramson">User:BDAbramson User talk:BDAbramson 15:11, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC) :It's disruption, yes, but it isn't vandalism. I don't think we need to try and umbrella all parts of the blocking policy under the one term ''vandalism'' where they don't fit. User:Jarvik 16:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
''This article has been temporarily Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. It will be protected as soon as possible.''
#REDIRECT Template talk:Vandalism
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Vandalism:
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
VANdalism!
Vandalism.PNG
Vandalisminprogress
Vandalism_(Current_alerts)
Vandalism_(Most_recent_appearance)
Vandalism_in_Ireland
VANDALISM_IN_PROGRESS
VANDALISM_IN_PROGRESS
Vandalism_in_Progress
Vandalism_in_Progress
Vandalism_in_Progress
Vandalism_in_progress
Vandalism_in_progress
Vandalism_in_progress
Vandalism_in_Progress.
Vandalism_in_progress/"Hangman"_in_Sandbox
Vandalism_in_progress/195.92.168.169
Vandalism_in_progress/archive06072004
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200408
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200409
Vandalism_in_progress/archive20040909
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200410
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200411
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200412
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501A
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501B
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501C
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200502
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200502A
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200502B
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200503
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200504
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200504-1
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive_1
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive_2
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive_20040724
Vandalism_in_progress/CheeseDreams_controversy
Vandalism_in_progress/CheeseDreams_controversy
Vandalism_in_progress/Google-watch,_template
Vandalism_in_progress/History
Vandalism_in_progress/Intro
Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts
Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts
Vandalism_in_progress/Michael
Vandalism_in_progress/Mr._Treason
Vandalism_in_progress/New_Imperialism
Vandalism_in_progress/Wik
Vandalism_in_progress/Wikipedia_is_Communism
Vandalism_in_progress/Wikipedia_is_Communism
Vandalism_in_progress/Wikipedia_is_Communism/List_of_possible_accounts
Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels
Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels
Vandalism_in_progress_(other_than_Quagga's)
Vandalism_in_progress_-_old_alerts
Vandalism_in_progress_-_old_alerts
Vandalism_on_Wikipedia
Vandalism_on_Wikipedia
Vandalism
Vandalism is the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure or symbol. It can be done as an expression of contempt, creativity, or both. The term refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly looting the city of Rome in 455. The term was coined in January 1794 during the French Revolution, by Henri Gregoire, constitutional bishop of Blois, in his report directed to the Republican Convention, where he used word ''Vandalisme'' to describe some aspects of the behaviour of the republican army. == Official vandalism == [[Image:Abou Simbel.jpg|thumb|left|222px|Abu Simbel: an official portrait sculpture ritually defaced]] Throughout history, the ritual destruction of monuments of a previous government or power has been one of the greatest symbols showing the attempt at transition of power (''illustration, below left''). In Rome ''damnatio memoriae'' ("damnation of his memory") was normally expressed by erasing the name of a hated individual from inscriptions and removing or replacing statues or replacing just their heads after their death and subsequent disgrace. ''Damnatio memoriae'' was effected after their death by the rivals and heirs of Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus and Elagabulus. After the Emperor Caracalla had his co-Emperor Publius Septimius Geta assassinated, all depictions or references to Geta were systematically destroyed as part of a ''damnatio memoriae''. Faces and genitals of surviving Greek and Roman sculpture often show how they have been systematically attacked. In palimpsests, text has been washed off parchment that have been overwritten with new text; the existence of effaced manuscripts that were not subsequently overwritten reveals an element of vandalism in this process. In Egypt, the return of the priests of Amun to power after the religious innovations of Akhenaten was accompanied by desecration of the pharaoh's tomb and the ritual obliteration of his image from temple reliefs and inscriptions. This is official vandalism. Recent cases of vandalism in this vein include the toppling and destruction of Soviet monuments after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Taliban destruction of Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and the :Image:Saddamstatue.jpg of a Saddam Hussein statue by the multinational force in Iraq. In a country with an unpopular dictator, vandalism of the leader's portraits and other elements of his personality cult can be a common form of dissent. Vandalism of Jewish properties and Jewish-owned businesses was part of the Nazi program, surfacing in the widespread, coordinated vandalism of ''Kristallnacht'' the night of November 9 – 10, 1938, when shopwindows were smashed all over Nazi Germany. == Vandalism as crime == Private citizens commit vandalism when they willfully destroy the property of others or the commons. This type of vandalism includes graffiti and is often committed by alienated youth. [[Image:Graffitiforvandalismarticle.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Graffiti tagging is an art with roots in vandalism]] With the rise and development of the World Wide Web came unauthorized and undesired modification of Web pages. During the late 1990s, malicious young computer criminals took to vandalizing Web sites ''en masse'', sometimes using computer worm to do so. (See, e.g., Hacked By Chinese! for one famous example.) Web forums, wikis, and other resources that are deliberately made publicly editable can also be vandalized. This is sometimes done by persons with a hostility toward the site or its operator, but also by Internet trolls or others simply expressing contempt for other people's work. Some vandalism qualifies as culture jamming or sniggle — artistic statements in their own right that are illegal and destructive from the point of view of the legal system, but are done with a creative and artistic impulse. Graffiti art qualifies in some cases at least, also billboard liberation and crop circles. ==See also== *Vandalism in Ireland *Iconoclasm *[http://graffiti.org Graffiti.org] ---- ''Vandalism (electronic music) is also an electronic music act from Australia. Crimes simple:Vandal
Vandalism
==Discussion== Any expert in dealing with vandalism here? The newly started wiki, [http://www.wikichristian.com wikichristian] is under attack from vandals which forced the sysops to protect almost all the pages, defeating the purpose of a wiki! As a sysop at wikiChristian, I am desperately looking for good advice. Help appreciated. Thanks a million. -Prab R Tumpati, MD Not to be a humourless wad, but the "before" and "after" pictures in this article seem unnecessarily silly. User:Ashibaka User talk:Ashibaka 23:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Agreed. Although I did get a laugh of them. --User:Tothebarricades.tk 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) ::I thought they were amusing. But they are silly. User:Pikpik 22:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ---- You're not welcome to characterize Wikipedia's policy on vandalism, Cunctator --LMS :Why not? And was there actually anything biased or inappropriate in my text, or do you just dislike me? --The Cunctator ---- :willful wanton and malicious destruction of the property of others. Destruction of something that is nobody's property can also constitute vandalism. :More recent cases of Vandalism include the Taliban destruction of Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan. Anyone's going to write about destruction of Communists statuary in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 ? User:Taw ---- : More recent cases of Vandalism include the :Taliban destruction of Buddhist statuary in :Afghanistan. Removed. It was act of propaganda not vandalism. ::Was it really propaganda? or was it anti-idolatry? I think the Taliban would say the latter. Not agreeing or condoning, but think it's important to note the difference. Personally, I'd call it vandalism, but then I like my churches elaborate....User:JHK ::They wanted to show everyone that they are more Muslim and Quran-following that anyone else is. That seems to be the purpose of this action. --User:Taw The justification for removal is fallacious. Propaganda and vandalism need not be exclusive. One can commit an act of vandalism for purposes of propaganda, which seems to have been the case here. I propose restoring the example. --User:AV I agree with that. --User:Seb If any one is interested this site has a statement by a Taliban ambassador on why the statues were destroyed and although arguably the action was justified, still it remains 'vandalism' in the sense listed. Perhaps then an addition saying that vandalism is not necessarily a bad thing? Anyway here's the link: http://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/syed_hashmi.shtml User:David Byron ------- In order to expand this entry to something beyond just a dictionary entry (it is a little more than that, but not much) I think someone (with more knowledge then me) should write a bit about the history of vandalism and its conflicting position in society. Tag art, street art, and lots of other stuff are commonly called vandalism, but have a whole history and meaning seperate from the prejorative description. More importantly, there is a lot of data out there on the subject from Roman times to the present, and it would mean a meatier article. ---- I was just thinking - shouldn't the Vandalism in Ireland bit be a different page altogether. Its not relevant to the actual entry on vandalism, but is an important entry all the same. User:Ludraman 17:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) ----- I do not think the article is balanced, although I am kind of reluctant to make any changes before discussion. The article mentions Taliban's destruction of Buddhist statues, and a specific case of "Irish vandalism" - but does not mention at all communist vandalism - the destruction of tens of thousands of churches and "czarist monuments" on Russia alone, not mentioning the same activity everywhere where communists came to power. Instead, a rather ritual destruction of several tasteless, obnoxious communist monuments is given as an example of vandalism. Many of the communist monuments in Russia are moved to museums, but most of them remain where they were. An especially disgusting case is the huge aluminum "Mother Motherland" in Kiev, that insults the ancient city - it is itself a kind of graffiti and vandalism - imagine a 300-feet tall aluminum Jesus Christ over Rome, and you'll get the picture. Two specific cases of well publicised monument are worth noting: the demolition of Dzerzhinsky's monument in Moscow, and the demolition of Saddam's monument in Baghdad. Both are notorious torturers, and there should be some limits in preserving this kind of monuments, right? Say, someone erected a Hitler monument in Chicago in 1932; would the monument survive the WWII? Hardly. In general, to avoid politics, I would suggest to remove any mentioning of historical monument demolitions done by governments or political forces. Or else it would make sense to add the destruction of Dresden and Hiroshima as acts of vandalism. [[User:Vpatryshev|VPatryshev] - vpatryshev@yahoo.com ==Basis for a future rewrite== Vandalism is an act of cultural violence, much like the raping of women. It ''always'' has justifications— if you ask the vandal: they may be religious, social, political, artistic. The justifications are interesting in themselves and all need subsections, but they don't affect the main entry. Much material has been suppressed here (see History) and needs to be more neutrally re-evaluated. Recently Wikipedia material may have been needlessly suppressed as "plagiarized," simply because it appears at Wiki mirror sites, I believe. User:Wetman 00:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Needless to say, the cautious reader will be aware that it was not I who reverted this chuckleheaded article.) For a familiar denial of the descriptive assessment that vandalism is an act of cultural violence, (as is rape, in fact), see the following note of User:TheGrza. People who imagine a distinction between Vandalism (capitalized) and vandalism (lowercase) aren't in the habit of reading printed history ''or'' sociology. Would someone please put a disambiguating notice at the head that this entry does not concern the actual Vandals of the 5th century? An adult discussion of political-religious vandalism might begin by mentioning the defaced monuments of Akhnaten and the wave of vandalism that swept the Roman Empire in the wake of the Theodosius I. That's, um, a hint.19:28, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::(''email to Wetman, posted here, where it is more generally useful'')Any page that deals with the topic of vandalism must take into account the other reasons beyond pointless destruction that inspire such acts. To compare them to "rapists" is ludicrious and insulting, especially to those who use it as an artform and a public forum. I appreciate that the article was possibly slanted to include this opinion, and I apologize. I always try to do my best to keep Wikipedia from containing any bias and I didn't truly cover the other side. To whitewash all vandalism as "rape" ,as you put it, shows the opposite bias. ==Response to the rewrite== The article was in shambles, rambling back and forth with no real direction and including maybe the worst possible picture I have yet seen in a Wikipedia article. I agree that it was slanted toward the point of view that vandalism isn't wrong and I suppose that was me just trying to be objective and going too far. The article should not have been reverted to its originial form, however, without taking into account the work and research I have done on this page, but reshaped with your own attempt to bring objectivity to the process. As for the subsections, I do not believe that they constitute their own article because, sans Graffiti, they do not have enough information that is unique to their existence e.g. an article on vandalism in the form of "stenciling" would appear to be a stub with all reasonable information included. These other POV on vandalism should be recognized by those who may find your comparison to rape to be not only insulting, but biased and extreme, with no real connection to the work itself. As for the suppression of material, it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of this article. There was information that was taken verbatim from another webpage (NOT a mirror) and I deleted it and rewrote the information into the story in a non-plagiarized way. The only material in any way "suppressed" was the article I wrote being tossed to the winds for no other reason then the lack of willingness of Wikipedians to contribute pieces to articles rather than revert them to their former embarassing selves.
-- 10:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) '''But, wait! There's more...''' The idea that because there has been large scale and important historical vandalism is important, and the idea of vandalism being, as you described it, "Cultural Violence" is another important idea that I agree should be in the article. My only point is that the article was nothing more than incomplete and by its incompletion biased, a regrettable situation. The article should be rewritten but with NPOV, taking into account the different types of vandalism, not just your "cultural violence". --User:TheGrza 22:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) ::My point is simply that all entrries must begin with the historic and central meaning, in this case of ''vandalism''' --then it may move on to modern extensions of the term. But to argue ''whether'' vandalism is cultural violence (as rape is) or not-- well, I haven't the inclination... But, as I said, it ''always'' has justifications— User:Wetman 08:52, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC) == I am sorry, TheGrza == I'm sorry TheGrza - my browser was having a hard time connecting to wikipedia and I ended up doing what I didn't mean to do. Could anyone please rollback my edit? (12:22, 21 Sep 2004 62.29.254.81 (reverted changes by TheGrza)) I could put it back to TheGrza's version but I don't want to clutter the history. Thanks and please accept my apologies. == This picture probably not appropriate == Is the current picture (Graffitiforvandalismarticle.jpg) really "graffiti vandalism"? Are we positive that it's vandalism and not a work of art, drawn with permission, on the side of a building? In any case it's not a great illustration of "typical" graffiti vandalism. There were plenty of other pictures on the Melbourne site that would qualify. I'll volunteer to pick one (with the aim of showing that something was vandalized) if someone can attest that they gave permission to post other pictures from the site. User:Tempshill 20:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Good point. A new caption is more accurate, I hope. But add examples of clear vandalism. User:Wetman 23:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I was the one who got the picture from the folks over at Melbourne Graffiti and if you'll notice the grass at the bottom and the door on the right side of the picture, that is a warehouse. I picked that particular one because it is graffiti vandalism and it looks better then most of their other pictures. --Grza\">User_Talk:TheGrza">User:TheGrza|TheGrza\">User Talk:TheGrza 04:25, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC) == Closeinch's link(s) == What do you mean the Sayville link is "Spam" That is an interesting article. In addition, there are no other links. The page that links to vandalism is appropriate relevant. It is NOT spam. (Posted by User:Closeinch2) :That link, like the others you've been adding to various pages (such as Prostitution), is utterly worthless. Aside from being short, there are no references, no attempt at context or coherence, and contains some pretty strong allegations. It calls Teddy Roosevelt and Melissa Joan Hart vandals, the latter simply because (as a child) she "broke a thermometer and didn't tell the teacher". The images have all been ripped from other places, also unsourced, and the page (you) even state the images are not of the actual events. All of your links look to be complete bunk: I challenge anyone (other than yourself) to point out something ''useful'' in any of them. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a joke rag. :As for the link not being spam, it certainly qualifies as spam once one considers Special:Contributions/Closeinch2, Special:Contributions/Closeinch, and Special:Contributions/206.148.128.86, and Special:Contributions/204.193.6.90. There's at least one other IP you've been editing under, your sole contributions being the addition of your "Sayville hisotry" links, and the insertion of questionable references: I'm also not the one reverting these (e.g., see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Urban_legend&diff=7947078&oldid=7753692]). Please understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, nor is it a repository of external links. If there's something of value in the links you're trying to insert, why not integrate that information into Wikipedia rather than link to it externally? -- User:Hadal 04:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Self reference == Does the first sentence violate wikipedia's policy of self-reference? : Presumably, yes... but for some reason my mod to add the selfref template was reverted. User:Stoive 23:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC) I took it out because it wasn't a template, it was a link to template deletion. When there is a template to put in, I'm all for it.--User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 00:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC) : ok... the rfd has now been removed from the selfref template, so I'll stick it back in. User:Stoive 01:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC) == Poll: What version of "Vandalism" article do you prefer? == Please dont vandalise this poll. You may add as poll option your favorite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&action=history&limit=500&offset=0 version] of the vandalism article and vote for it. Please do not erase votes. === Vandalism === # User:Faethon387 14:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) === [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=10761093 Version dated 07:56, 4 Mar 2005] === ===[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=9930665 Version dated 04:58, 4 Feb 2005 ]=== === [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=293710 Initial version] === An Article Version in the spirit of the Vandals; Cruel and hostile to any artistic jpegs pictures, a version willful of destruction and defacement. #User:Acusilaus 11:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: This is an ex-Faethon account. This account is no longer public User:Faethon40 13:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::Correct, because somebody has gone in and changed the password to the account. --User:Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Any chance you guys will stop your edit war?== Perhaps you can move your poll to a sub-user page and link to it from this page in an unobtrusive page and we won't have this constant reverting? Also, User:Michael_Snow is right, keep the link off the actual page. --User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 02:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) :The so-called poll is frivolous. One of the choices is an example of vandalism, not an article about it, and another is the shoddy stub that first existed on this page. As far as I can tell, there's no serious active dispute about the content that would warrant a poll anyway. If I'm wrong about that, then the nature of the dispute needs to be discussed here on the talk page. :By the way, all of the accounts that are posting this "poll" are designed to be disruptive because they use "public passwords", which are against Wikipedia policy. For information on the disruption caused by the person responsible, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iasson and its talk page. --User:Michael Snow 07:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: If you dont like the poll option, you may add your favorite and vote for it. There is no policy that prohibits public accounts, but there is a policy that prohibits deletion of votes and quotes. And I am not Iasson but Faethon. User:Faethon40 07:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::If you create an account, you're responsible for the security of your password. Disclosing an account password is considered disruptive, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. If the password is released or can easily be discovered, it will be changed. This is established Wikipedia practice. --User:Michael Snow 18:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::: I am afraid that you are wrong. ArbCom is about to judge (based on existing policies), NOT about creating policies or legislate. Policies are created by community consensus, NOT by 8-9 persons that happens to be Arbitrators. The above decision of ArbCom is illegal. Thats why, both the arbitrators and the admins that support them should be punished. They abused the power that has been given to them, and they tried, against policy and community consensus, to legislate. User:Faethon41 07:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::There is a consensus, the Arbitration Committee was simply formulating an expression of the principle. CheeseDreams' password was changed before the ruling was made, and by someone who is neither an arbitrator nor an admin. Nor is this the first time passwords have been changed when they become publicly known, see User:Tim Starling/Password matches. --User:Michael Snow 17:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::: Its not the same! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling/Password_matches Tim Starling's list] is about "''groups of usernames share the same passwords''." means ONE person having multiple alternative user-names. A typical sockpuppet troll. My Faethon case is about ONE account, owned by many persons. You cannot tell for sure whether there is consensus on that or not, but let me give you a similar to my case example, taken from real life: Suppose you have left 10000 dollars in the middle of the road. Someone is going to steal them, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing. The same happens in my case, I published my password, and it is very possible someone is going to revert it, but this does not mean that there is a consensus on stealing publicaly known passwords. ::::::Let me remind you that in real life there is a consensus NOT to steal the 10000 dollars you have found in the middle of the road, and the one who steals those dollars should be punished, if caught. And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalise an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit. They are very usefull, primarily because they obliterate wikipedians' inflated ego, especially the whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as beeing professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day. Thats why I believe there is consensus among healthy wikipedians to protect guest accounts and maybe punish any whimsical wikipedian writer who may change the guest account's password because of hate or any other pathological reason. ::::::IMHPO (in my humble public opinion) if we really want to know whether there is a consensus or not for accounts owned by more than one real persons, we have to put a vote for it. In any case, it is the community (or Jimbo himself) that has to legislate (or not legislate) about public accounts case (known also as guest accounts in other communities), and NOT the ArbCom! User:Aedesius 08:13, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::: "And here in wikipedia, there is a consensus NOT to turn blank or vandalise an article's page, just because you can do it, and the vandal should be punished, if caught. I believe that guest accounts having a well known password have a similar spirit" - this sounds rather like sophistry to me. One potential drawback of the 'public account' scheme as proposed is that such an arrangement makes it ''easier'' for vandals to get away scot-free, because they aren't uniquely identifiable. As for the stuff about "whimsical-type wikipedians which think themselves as beeing professional writers and wait their work to be recognized one day", and the statement that "healthy wikipedians" agree with you, that's a horrible position to take, not least because you are accusing me of being unhealthy. -User:Ashley Pomeroy 16:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::: I said that a whimsical-type wikipedian writer thinking himself as beeing a professional writer has an inflated ego, but I didnt say that he is considered as unhealthy! I characterized as unhealthy the persons who chase public accounts and revert their passwords and quotes without those accounts to commit any type of vandalism or illegal action and whithout of course beeing any kind of real danger for wikipedia (for obvious reasons). Its like puting in jail someone , just because you think he/she may commit a crime, before the crime is commited! This is unhealthy and the persons thinking like that have (IMHPO) a mental disorder, similar to Tinfoil hat persons. Unhealthy persons have also another tendency, they always tend to group eachother and form a mob, then they start to oppress and ban healthy persons, in order to form their unhealthy [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majoritarianism&oldid=9257979#Variations_and_concept_in-depth initialized loose majority]. User:Aeimnestus 07:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::The "logic" that User:Iasson uses (yes, it's you, you're really not fooling anyone) doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry, since it's completely incoherent. And as for the statement that "healthy wikipedians" agree with you, well, since no one publically (and probably no one anywhere) agrees with AT ALL, then either the group "healthy wikipedians" has a membership of one, or the so-called consensus is purely the product of your imagination. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::: I am also suspecting that Iasson uses sometimes my public account to advertise his stupid peculiar voting system, but I can assure you that I am not Iasson (although I may agree with him in some issues). There are plenty of forums around internet that have guest accounts. The fact that the unhealthy initialized loose majority of contemporary wikipedians bans consistently everyone who thinks that guest accounts are cool, this does not mean that there is noone who believes that. User:Aeimnestus 10:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::God, this is pathetic. Iasson, you are fooling no one. Nobody believes your crackpot voting theories, your transparent rationalizations for "public accounts", and most especially not your pathetic parade of badly disguised sockpuppets. No one. If this continues, people will become annoyed enough to institute disciplinary proceedings and give you the boot, and all your bluster and logic-chopping will not do you one teeny bit of good. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 13:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::: I repeat, I am not Iasson, I am Faethon. I have not sockpupets but a single (guest) account with a public password. You and your unhealthy friends are the ones who have stolen my previous guest accounts, and you are now the owners of at least 50 sockpuppets. And of course you are using them to vandalize wikipedia in order to accuse me. But I am not responsible for your vandalisms! I am only responsible for my single public account, and I am commited to revert any vandalisms done through this single public account I own, and not through the rest ones. You are a pathetic clan! I just said that you are an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majoritarianism&oldid=9257979#Variations_and_concept_in-depth initialized loose tyranic majority], that bans consistenlty everyone who believes that public accounts are cool, then you have the audacity to claim that there is noone who believes that! And now, predictably, you are planning to give me the boot, to prove to everybody who exactly you are. User:Aelianus Tacticus 08:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::::::::::: ''I repeat, I am not Iasson, I am Faethon. I have not sockpupets but a single (guest) account with a public password''. Iasson, old son, it's not just that you're a liar, but such a completely incompetent one that I find most amusing. Nobody "stole" your so-called public accounts -- you gave them away -- and vandals aren't taking the "public accounts" for joyrides: they've all been towed to the Wikipedia Impound Lot and aren't going anywhere. Looks like your Project Plausible deniability is a failure, just like your Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Average rule and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quadratic rule nonsense. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 21:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::: Calton, I think you misunderstand my motivation. Its NOT Plausible deniability. I am responsible for whatever it is said through my public account. My responsibility is of the sort of the responsibility Jimbo Wales has for whatever it is said to his wikipedia site (although in a much much more smaller scale). I am not going to accept any kind of vandalism action that may happens through my single public account, and I am commited to check it regularly and revert anything illegal or against rough consensus policy. And of course, although I may deny that I said something as a person, I am not denying the responsibility I have for whatever it is said through my public account. ::::::::::::: By the way, as long as I am not always online, I am searching for responsible persons to take care of my Faethon account and revert as fast as possible any vandalism that may happens when I am absent, and create as fast as possible the next Faethon account in case the Faethon password is robbed. If you know such a person willing to protect my single guest account from the vandals, please tell me, in order to nominate him as a Faethon administrator. Also I am planning to create a Faethon policy that will determine Faethon's behavior and limits. Any wikipedia editor that is not a sockpuppet is welcome to vote for it, so you are also welcome. User:Aelius Aristides 07:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::::::Go away, Iasson. Fast, slow, in a huff, protesting your innocence, chopping logic in your fractured English -- however you want to do it, just go. --User:Calton | User talk:Calton 23:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) You misunderstand the point about Tim Starling's list. The point is that for one of those groups of accounts, the password was discovered, therefore it was changed. Attempts to have "role accounts" or "public accounts" have consistently been rejected for at least the past two years. This, and the opinions of everyone besides Iasson/Faethon who has commented on the matter, demonstrates a community consensus that logged-in editors must accept some responsibility for maintaining the security of their accounts. Changing compromised passwords is a routine precaution, not rooted in any hate or pathology. --User:Michael Snow 06:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Effaced == Effaced is not the correct term for what happened in Afghanistan because they didn't fully destroy the statues. The picture that you have now changed twice shows two statues that continue to exist. The definition, taken from ol' dictionary.com, is this. #To rub or wipe out; erase. #To make indistinct as if by rubbing. #To conduct (oneself) inconspicuously. The statues still stand, thus not "wiped" or "rubbed" out, they are not indistinct, they were an attack specifically on religious statues to warn others that various religions would not be tolerated, making them incredibly distinct, and they were hardly inconspicuous. Therefore, defaced is the proper word to use for this picture.--User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 11:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC) : You seem to be referring to the Buddhas of Bamiyan — I edited the caption of :Image:Abou Simbel.jpg on the Vandalism page (see also: Abu Simbel). And I only edited it once; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=13421072&oldid=13377532 change] by an anon to 'defaced' was only made yesterday. If you are referring to :Image:Abou Simbel.jpg, please note that the middle statue ''has'' been completely destroyed from the waist up and is the one the caption is referring to. — User:Davenbelle 12:01, May 8, 2005 (UTC) The point stands; They were smashed up to be a warning, a vandalism tactic, to other groups. Blowing up the middle statue from the waist up does not constitute "erasing", or "conducting oneself inconspicuously" and have been defaced, not effaced.--User:TheGrzaGrza">User Talk:TheGrza 20:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC) == Incorrectly? == "The term refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly sacked the city of Rome in 455." So the Vandals did NOT sack Rome in 455? Because their article seems to indicate otherwise, as does the main page... : That claim seems to have been added in a more detailed form in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=10987996&oldid=10987952 this edit], but the explanation has been lost in subsequent copyediting. [http://www.athenapub.com/9timelin.htm This page] backs up the claim that they didn't actually sack the city, they just took everything of value (big difference). I guess both pages need some editing, and references. User:Sjorford User talk:Sjorford 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any Wikipedia:Assume good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism, and then Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism with – if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. A as of 2002 study by IBM found that most Wikipedia vandalism is Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version within five minutes. (See [http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/history/results.htm official results]) == Types of vandalism == These are the most common forms of vandalism on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism for details on each of these and tips on how to find such edits. ;Wikipedia:Spam: Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion. ;VandalBot: A Wikipedia:Bots that attempts to vandalize or spam ''massive'' amounts of articles (hundreds or thousands), blanking, or adding commercial links. ;Childish vandalism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog&diff=9829910&oldid=9829151 Adding graffiti] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenland&diff=7172688&oldid=7172681 blanking pages]. (The Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Female Cyclist Vandal is an example of this type.) Note that this page, itself, was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&oldid=15034579 blank page vandalized] on June 11, 2005. ;Silly vandalism: Users will sometimes create Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Pelican shit vandal.) ;Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos (e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TIME_Magazine%27s_100_most_influential_people_of_2004&diff=4186621&oldid=4182587] which was reverted because the source material is easily available). ;Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) ;User page vandalism: Replacing Wikipedia:User pages with insults, profanity, etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks) ;Image vandalism: Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. ;Template vandalism: Adding any of the above to templates. ;Page move vandalism: Moving pages to offensive or nonsense names. Most infamous example was the Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels. ;Redirect vandalism: Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#Autofellatio redirect vandal. ;Link vandalism: Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something irrelevant or silly (e.g. Chewbacca defense). == What Vandalism Is Not == Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently: ;Newbie Test: New users who discover the "Edit this page" button want to know if they can really edit any page, so they write something inside just to test it. This is not vandalism! On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the [] template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes.) ;Learning Wiki Markup and Manual of Style: For some users, it takes a while to learn the wiki-based markup, and will spend a little time experimenting with the different ways to make external links, internal links, and other special characters. Rather than condemning them as vandals, just explain to them what our standard style is on the issue in hand—perhaps pointing them towards our documentation at Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the like. ;NPOV Violations: The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. See also: NPOV dispute. ;Bold Edits: Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. That said, the wise Wikipedian tempers boldness with WikiLove. ;Mistakes: Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it. ;Bullying or Stubbornness: Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. ;Harassing or Making Personal Attacks: We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. Some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as home page vandalism. However, harassment is not in general vandalism. ;The Unexpected: Just because someone is editing in an unusual way doesn't make him or her a vandal. If someone is making solid edits but writing, "Hi, Mom!" in his or her edit summaries, this doesn't make them an oddball vandal; it makes him or her a newcomer. By all means have a friendly chat about the proper use of edit summaries. Don't blanket revert him/her. Don't block him/her. == See also == * Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress - report current activity * Wikipedia:How to spot vandalism * Wikipedia:Simple vandalism * Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism * Meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles (Humor) Wikipedia vandalism als:Vandal (Wikipedia)
Vandalism
This appears to be another well-intentioned but ultimately not very useful MediaWiki: page. Firstly metadata about an article should not be in the article itself - e.g. it would be very odd to see this vandalism message in a fork of Wikipedia which does not allow editing! So please use it in the talk: namespace only. Also, couldn't a vandal simply remove it? Or are they too thick? User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 23:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) Agreed. This page is useless and should be removed.--User:EloquenceUser:Eloquence/CP 23:54, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC) *I'm inclined to agree with Erik. User:Raul654 00:56, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism
Vandalism
#redirect Template:Vandalism
Vandalism
A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc. == Was this vandalism? == Template:WikipediaSister, including on the Main Page, was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the be bold rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? User:Violetriga User_talk:violetriga 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) :It's not vandalism IMO, but it is against the 3RR User:Dori | User talk:Dori 01:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) :I think the gesture was very nice, but I also think that they need to be told (gently) that breaking the 3RR is definitely frowned upon, and that we try to keep the templates to a minimum because there is not much real estate on the front page. I don't think it was vandalism. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) : No, I don't think it was vandalism. There probably is a grey area for vandalism (e.g. link-spam), but I don't think this falls into it. This is just a Wikipedia editor doing something that they ''thought'' was fine, but which others disagreed with. User:Jnc User_talk:Jnc 11:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) I find that dates of birth and death are particularly vulnerable to sneaky vandalism. :Definitely not vandalism. Just a disagreement, probably made more difficult by a language barrier (i.e. English not being GerardM's first language.) "Vandalism" should only refer to deliberate defacement. GerardM clearly thought he was being reasonable, although from his comments I couldn't quite understand his rationale. User:Isomorphic 07:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) == ''Anyone'', Can Edit. Threats and Possibilities. == :There are many vague vandalism fears of the endless possibilities of Wikipedian vandalism. One of such fears could be "What if suddenly Wikipedia is discovered by people who don't realize it is created for them also? What if for example, a random High School kid decides that it is funny to post an obscenity on a seemingly scholarly website? What is interesting about this sort of fear and possibility is that, for example, ''that'' teenager would have the most to benefit from this site. Because what people underestimate is that EVERYONE has interests. Some people just don't realize they have the access to information to utilize them. In addition to the fact that person could realize they can have a voice and play an active role in editing biased statements about their demographic. ---- I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material.User:NCdave 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Anyone looking at your edit history can see you're a controversial editor with an agenda, which is shown in articles such as Terri Schiavo and partial-birth abortion. User:TheCustomOfLife 22:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) == Shortcut to this article == I created another shortcut: wp:vand ==POV vandalism== I disagree with the apparent blanket statement that POV edits are not vandalism. There are some cases - particularly where a user continues to restore POV rants that have repeatedly been deleted and go against clearly established consensus - where introduction of POV is indeed vandalism. -- BDAbramson">User:BDAbramson User talk:BDAbramson 15:11, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC) :It's disruption, yes, but it isn't vandalism. I don't think we need to try and umbrella all parts of the blocking policy under the one term ''vandalism'' where they don't fit. User:Jarvik 16:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Vandalism
''This article has been temporarily Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. It will be protected as soon as possible.''
Vandalism
#REDIRECT Template talk:Vandalism
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
V
Words begining with Vandalism:
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
Vandalism
VANdalism!
Vandalism.PNG
Vandalisminprogress
Vandalism_(Current_alerts)
Vandalism_(Most_recent_appearance)
Vandalism_in_Ireland
VANDALISM_IN_PROGRESS
VANDALISM_IN_PROGRESS
Vandalism_in_Progress
Vandalism_in_Progress
Vandalism_in_Progress
Vandalism_in_progress
Vandalism_in_progress
Vandalism_in_progress
Vandalism_in_Progress.
Vandalism_in_progress/"Hangman"_in_Sandbox
Vandalism_in_progress/195.92.168.169
Vandalism_in_progress/archive06072004
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200408
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200409
Vandalism_in_progress/archive20040909
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200410
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200411
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200412
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501A
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501B
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200501C
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200502
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200502A
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200502B
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200503
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200504
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200504-1
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive_1
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive_2
Vandalism_in_progress/Archive_20040724
Vandalism_in_progress/CheeseDreams_controversy
Vandalism_in_progress/CheeseDreams_controversy
Vandalism_in_progress/Google-watch,_template
Vandalism_in_progress/History
Vandalism_in_progress/Intro
Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts
Vandalism_in_progress/Long_term_alerts
Vandalism_in_progress/Michael
Vandalism_in_progress/Mr._Treason
Vandalism_in_progress/New_Imperialism
Vandalism_in_progress/Wik
Vandalism_in_progress/Wikipedia_is_Communism
Vandalism_in_progress/Wikipedia_is_Communism
Vandalism_in_progress/Wikipedia_is_Communism/List_of_possible_accounts
Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels
Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels
Vandalism_in_progress_(other_than_Quagga's)
Vandalism_in_progress_-_old_alerts
Vandalism_in_progress_-_old_alerts
Vandalism_on_Wikipedia
Vandalism_on_Wikipedia
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
