Open main menu

I think that "Vandalism" is an ambigous term (abstract term). This page, as a policy, should contain a more precise definition of the range of what should be considered vandalism. Where is the line between malicious or non malicious edit? It is evident that change the description of a page in order to confuse or change the meaning and the explanation about the file is vandalism. But change categories, for instance, in appliance of commons:categorization is often interpreted by some other users as vandalism and reverted. --Bestiasonica (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting image vandalismEdit

"You need to be logged-in to revert the image. (If you do not have an account, creating one takes only a few seconds, needs no personal details, and is free.)"

This section is misleading. In order to revert image vandalism, you need the reupload permission, but according to Special:ListGroupRights, you need to be autoconfirmed in order to reupload files. Thus, reverting image vandalism is not just a matter of registering an account. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


How about using {{IRC|wikimedia-commons|webchat=1|text=IRC chatroom}}#wikimedia-commons webchat (it features a webchat-link). -- Rillke(q?) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism-only imagesEdit

Images without any good version in the file history happen, which are only used for vandalism in Wikipedia. Examples:

Should a guideline exist about vandalism abroad by Commons images? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Vandalism".