Talk:Vandalism

Contents

1 Discussion

2 Basis for a future rewrite

3 Response to the rewrite

4 I am sorry, TheGrza

5 This picture probably not appropriate

6 Closeinch's link(s)

7 Self reference

8 Poll: What version of "Vandalism" article do you prefer?

8.1 Current Version
8.2 Version dated 07:56, 4 Mar 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=10761093)
8.3 Version dated 04:58, 4 Feb 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=9930665)
8.4 Initial version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=293710)

9 Any chance you guys will stop your edit war?

10 Effaced

11 Incorrectly?

Discussion

Any expert in dealing with vandalism here? The newly started wiki, wikichristian (http://www.wikichristian.com) 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. Ashibaka ✎ 23:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I did get a laugh of them. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought they were amusing. But they are silly. 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 ? 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....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. --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. --AV

I agree with that. --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 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. 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. 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 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 Theodosian decrees. 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". --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— 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. Tempshill 20:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good point. A new caption is more accurate, I hope. But add examples of clear vandalism. 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.

--[[User:TheGrza|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 the edits under your current username, the edits under your previous username, and the edits under one of your IPs, and the edits under another one of your IPs. 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 [1] (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? -- 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. 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.--The Grza 00:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

ok... the rfd has now been removed from the selfref template, so I'll stick it back in. 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 version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&action=history&limit=500&offset=0) of the vandalism article and vote for it. Please do not erase votes.

Current Version

Faethon387 14:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Version dated 07:56, 4 Mar 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=10761093)

Version dated 04:58, 4 Feb 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=9930665)

Initial version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&oldid=293710)

An Article Version in the spirit of the Vandals; Cruel and hostile to any artistic jpegs pictures, a version willful of destruction and defacement.

Acusilaus 11:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an ex-Faethon account. This account is no longer public Faethon40 13:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct, because somebody has gone in and changed the password to the account. --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, Michael Snow is right, keep the link off the actual page. --The Grza 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. --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. 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. --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. 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. --Michael Snow 17:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Its not the same! Tim Starling's list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling/Password_matches) 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! 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. -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 initialized loose majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majoritarianism&oldid=9257979#Variations_and_concept_in-depth). Aeimnestus 07:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "logic" that 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. --Calton | Talk 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. 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. --Calton | Talk 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 initialized loose tyranic majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Majoritarianism&oldid=9257979#Variations_and_concept_in-depth), 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. 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 Average rule and Quadratic rule nonsense. --Calton | Talk 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. 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. --Calton | Talk 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. --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.--The Grza 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 change (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=13421072&oldid=13377532) 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. — 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.--The Grza 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 this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism&diff=10987996&oldid=10987952), but the explanation has been lost in subsequent copyediting. This page (http://www.athenapub.com/9timelin.htm) 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. sjorford →•← 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Vandalism"