MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 4

Image:Av.jpg

I do not understand why this image is on this list, as it is neither obscene nor large, and the template has been removed. Please remove it.--Ainlina--Speak to me--Ask a question--Praise and criticism 15:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This image is one of a small number which have been regularly used for highly disruptive template vandalism over the past few months. It was put on this list as a last resort, which seems to be working, but it is my opinion that it should probably stay on the list for at least another month. If you have any suggestions for exceptions ... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Erection Development.jpg

Image:Erection Development.jpg used to vandalize PowerBook 100 on Aug 10. Luckily they didn't link it properly, but still… — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Used in many places and already listed. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this list

There needs to be a much more explicit description of the appropriate use of this list. My understanding was that it was primarily intended to prevent people from posting sexually explicit, graphic and unpleasant images on articles and in talk spaces where they do not belong. Today I noticed that someone has added a totally innocuous, non-sexual, non-explicit line drawing of a symbol to the list. The reasoning, apparently, is that someone has been using that particular image in the process of vandalising Wikipedia. Fair enough, but surely this isn't what the list is for. In this particular case, where one certain vandal has been using an otherwise non-offensive image as a type of signature, aren't we better to block the vandal rather than prevent everyone from using the image? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's the exact purpose of this list. Images which are used abusively are added here, preventing their use outside of specifically listed pages. When a certain vandal uses numerous sockpuppets and open proxies, a simple block doesn't stop image vandalism. Preventing the use of the image does. - auburnpilot talk 19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the related discussion here. This seems to be a rather unique situation. It's not an image of a penis that is being widely used to vandalise a variety of pages by a number of editors. In other words, I don't think it's really image vandalism at all: it's not that an image itself is being used to vandalise pages, but that a vandal is using the image as a kind of signature. Placing the image on the bad image list won't prevent the vandal from continuing to vandalise pages, but it will make it harder for others to use the image (particularly those who aren't familiar with the list and don't know how to ask for an exception). And there's nothing stopping him from simply choosing a different image to use -- there are several images of celtic crosses to choose from. Are we to block every single image? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a picture of a penis or a picture of a cross. It's a proper use of the list, and prevents an image being used abusively. - auburnpilot talk 19:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the discussion and explicit information about what constitutes proper use of the list? As far as I can tell there's never really been any. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe common sense is the guiding force here. What exactly is your problem with listing images that have been used abusively? The same thing was done with images of Avril Lavigne when they were being used to vandalize the help desk. - auburnpilot talk 19:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've explained it fairly clearly already, and beyond that I think that some formal discussion of the purpose and use of this list needs to take place. Here we have a case where a user has -- in completely good faith, I'm not disputing that -- placed a totally non-offensive image on the list in an attempt to prevent a single vandal from using it not to shock or offend other users (as has been the case with various human genitalia and sexuality-related images), but simply as a signature. As I've already said, preventing him from using this single image will neither stop him from vandalising pages nor stop him from simply choosing a different image of the same thing or a different version of the same image. In other words, it's not preventing the vandalism, only making it harder to use the image legitimately. And where does this end? When we've protected every single image of a Celtic cross? It's easy to see how this particular way of using the list could rapidly get out of control. As it is the list is already unwieldy. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Having just read your comments within the two archives of this talk page, I now understand your position a little better. I also now understand that I will not be able to convince you that adding the image was a good move, so I'll just back away from this discussion instead. - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I've never been a fan of the list from the get-go, but this seems a unique situation. Plus, as far as I can tell, the list began because a user thought it was needed and went into use with seemingly no discussion at all. At the very least there need to be some consensus-reached guidelines for using it hammered out and posted where they are visible. At present this list is... what? A guideline? A policy? Something completely different? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an administrative tool used to help reduce particular instances of image vandalism. You are right this is not a common situation. Penis image vandalism is common, but there have been very few cases of vandals using images for vandalism in ways which are not designed to cause gross offence. It's the only reason the list is so full of penises. The image we are talking about here has been used to vandalise tens of thousands of articles for several weeks, using open proxies each time. The image has always formed an integral part - part of the purpose - of the vandalism, and especially in the absence of other administrative methods (blocks, protections), there are benefits to be had from attempting to frustrate that purpose with this list. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but some kind of guidelines are still needed. If it's an administrative tool (as in, an admin tool) then it should also be listed in New Admin School and the relevant pages, for example. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(late join) This list's purpose is to stop the disruptive use of images, it has grown to be more preventative in nature for images that are likely to be disruptive then ones that are necessarily being disruptive. From time to time the list grows and gets trimmed back (although it appears to have had a lot more growth then pruning lately). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the BIL pages

I'm proposing that we add some information to these pages. To begin, I've created headers for the main message page and this talk page. To avoid cluttering the page, I've placed them on a separate page, but please leave your comments here.

I more or less borrowed the headers from the Admin notice board, so colours may need to be changed. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points of concern:

1. The header includes bullet points with links, which will normally be read by the software as images/exceptions, but I don't know what it will do when those links are not images.
2. The past assumption was that, as the software has to read all of the content on the list and then apply it to the site, any extraneous text that causes the servers to do extra work should be removed. This is why the instructions now at the top of this page were moved from the page itself. The proposal includes a lot of extra text and markup, strictly from a server performance standpoint.

Besides that, I haven't seen a whole lot of confusion by users on this page requesting exceptions and such, but I don't have any problem with an attempt at clarification if people think there's a problem. - BanyanTree 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The MediaWiki message can't have the header on the message itself. I'm not sure the proposed talk page header will add much, though there's probably nothing wrong with tidying up the instructions which are already above. Most people who are aware of image vandalism already know how to make a request or edit the page. There are plenty of examples already on the pages for people to follow. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The headers don't have to be in their present form. On the message page the links can easily be taken out and/or the header can simply be a message directing users to the talk page. There also need to be some guidelines about what images get added and why, and who can remove them and when. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see a need for a fancy header or the creation of guidelines for what images can or cannot be added here. The page has existed and been in use since April 2005 without any defined rules, and the common sense and judgment of admins has worked just fine. Requests for images to be placed on this list are better made on WP:AN or WP:AN/I anyway, as more admins monitor those pages than this one. After all, this is more of a "behind the scenes" technical aspect of the project than it is anything else. Let's keep this page as simple as possible. - auburnpilot talk 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it too late for me to join with AuburnPilot in opposing the addition of a "purpose" description? I believe that this qualifies as instruction creep and will just encourage wikilawyering.

I would like to further propose we go back to the pre-2006 model of removing links to the list whenever possible in attempt to achieve security through obscurity, thus practically ensuring that the only users who end up on the bad image list have been on the wiki for years and are already well acquainted with administrative tools. This would be a very bad page for newcomers to have their first experience with administrative procedures, as you would have to describe the entire hierarchy of administrative sanctions (deletion, blocking, protection, etc) both as written and as performed in order to explain how this list is used. - BanyanTree 11:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked the header a bit to make it look less 'formal'. There's nothing wrong with providing a nicely formatted description of the page at the top. I agree that this list should not be linked wherever possible, because people so easily get the wrong impression of what this list is. The one exception is requests for exemptions from new users, which should generally be encouraged. I tend to think they are better handled here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with an Oppose on that proposal to obscuring the page. As I demonstrated below in the shaved bush discussion, a newcomer happening upon this board can stimulate debate that can lead to policy changes on this page - even if I disagree with the changes. But closing off the backroom workings of wikipedia you lead to an isolated society where no one thinks outside the box, and no one points out that the box is made of cardboard. Instead of hiding the page try to write the rules and description to best describe what the purpose of the page is, and what the purpose of the page is not. Crafting good regulations is much preferred to having an ad-hoc system based on traditions. If there is a difference between how things are written and how they are performed then simply change the way they are written to conform to how they are performed. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 13:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Is that under the assumption that random admins are less likely to add exceptions?

Do you have an idea of how to structure the links to funnel requests for exceptions here while reducing the overall number of random passers-by? I'm thinking that the link at Wikipedia:Pornography#Vandalism and other places could be removed, while maybe the link at {{badimage}} stays. (?)- BanyanTree 13:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's under the assumption that the admin boards are busy enough, sometimes too busy with people just needing to express an opinion. Mainly however when people ask for an exemption they should have some idea of the fairly liberal precedent, and they're all collected right here. I don't have the whole answer about how to structure the links. However I do think the link on the template is appropriate, as people will go to the image to find out why it's not displaying, while it's mainly the other links that lead to incorrect assumptions about the list. The people looking to prevent an image displaying, instead of allowing it to display, should normally look elsewhere first. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be "fancy," but header or no header, there's a need for guidelines. I wonder how many admins are even aware of this? Exploding Boy (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove Image:Celtic-style crossed circle.svg

Why is this on here?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See edit summary and the related discussion above. I don't know if the situation that caused its inclusion has since been resolved, though removing it from this list may be advisable if no one has any further information. - BanyanTree 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Jyllands Posten

Insulting Islam Muhammad Azmi 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Has it been used for vandalism or other disruptive editing? If so, are the less extreme options of blocking an editor or protecting a page not available? We don't put items on this list because somebody is offended. See my post above on why this would result in a nearly endless list.

Image:Zack Randall by David Shankbone.jpg

This has been used disruptively on a talk page here and there's something wrong with the file history - the description in the comment box doesn't match the one in the summary and bears no relation to the content of the image itself. I think it may qualify for the BIL, but ought it to be reported anywhere else in view of the dodgy wording? Karenjc 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Added. Note that the uploader changed the description a minute after uploading. Note that the original summary for this image is now used apparently accurately for Image:The making of an adult film 3 by David Shankbone.jpg. As David Shankbone is well-known for his prolific photographs, I would assume that he was preparing multiple uploads and made a cut-and-paste error that he immediately corrected. - BanyanTree 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg

Has been used in vandalism, such as in the article Tofu, and seems similar to many current bad images. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This media file does not appear to exist, nor can I find a log of its deletion. - BanyanTree 01:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg. - auburnpilot talk 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Erection.jpg

{{mediawikiedit}}

Image has been used for vandalism on various articles, see Special:Contributions/64.7.28.70. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Added. - BanyanTree 23:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cover She's Hot! split.gif

I'm not sure whether Image:Cover She's Hot! split.gif qualifies, so please consider. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• And here are some more for review: Image:Diphallia.gif, Image:Ehehhgetr.gif, Image:Embrace Stevie.gif, Image:Erection Process Ed 150px.gif. If they don't qualify for this list, does someone maintain a watch list on these things? (found what I was looking for). Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm not so sure that they are watch lists. Oh well. -- Suntag ☼ 15:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Added all except the chicken animation, which has been sent to IFD. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Australian_Shepherd_puppy_red_merle.jpg

Image used for vandalism on John Brooke-Little and Sonnenbühl by sockpuppets of Hiderek1. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 05:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this recurred or has the vandal grown bored and moved on? - BanyanTree 07:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perineum

Hi, I would like to use this photo Image:The Taint by David Shankbone.jpg to the gallery section of article about Perineum on Czech wikipedia - http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hr%C3%A1z_(anatomie) Thank you.--Faigl.ladislav (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no control over Czech Wikipedia. Please repost your request to cs:MediaWiki:Bad image list. Thanks, BanyanTree 07:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Croppv.jpg

This image of a vulva should be limited to the vulva article. It was used to vandalize the Wikipedia article, and I'd imagine it could be popular for vandalizing other articles.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Posted. - BanyanTree 07:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion of 2257-triggering images

A recent addition to this list prompted me to seek clarification from Jimbo on his talk page. Per his clarification there, another user summarily deleted the image in question. Based on this clarification, it appears admins should delete such images rather than post them here. If the image is on Commons and the admin is not also an admin there, please note that in the edit summary when posting to the list and hopefully I or another Commons admin will notice and handle it. I'm sure that many users will actually demand a policy formulation of this, but I'm too lazy to give one and am content with a process-oriented solution. - BanyanTree 22:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At what point exactly does an image become '2257-triggering'? Many (the majority?) of the pics on the BIL could be considered to be 'sexually explicit'. I don't really get it. Is it the presence of semen that makes a difference? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Our article on the subject is not great on this point. The law itself uses the phrase "any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct", among others. I am not a lawyer but the site has long speedied photos of actual sexual penetration, which is why we use the line drawings. Jimbo's post clarifies that creampies are also 2257-triggering. Until Jimbo or the Foundation legal counsel tells us otherwise, I'm going to assume that everything else is fair game.

Selfishly speaking, I could argue that creampies are an overly restrictive interpretation or conversely argue that every non-National Geographic-type nude should be deleted, but I'm happy to have what appears to be a relatively well-defined line that doesn't require us to go around deleting large numbers of images. - BanyanTree 23:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Graphic picture of dung in medical article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Celiac_3.jpg It isn't on the list yet, but I believe it should be. The other image in the article isn't that bad, but this one, is just too graphic. Dream Focus (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Has it been abused anywhere? There's dozens, possibly hundreds, of pictures that exist here and on commons that are "graphic," but we generally only add them to the list if they are being abused. Mr.Z-man 20:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use the Wikipedia's censor javascript thing so that things of a nature you would find disturbing to look ta won't load up, then you have to add it to this list. So anything that involves nudity, dung, sex acts, or whatnot, is on the list. I don't understand about the abused part. I thought this was just for things that grossed people out. Everyone can still see the images, unless they go to a certain wikipedia page and add in a line there, to block everything on the list. Dream Focus (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No, see the header at the top of the page that explains the purpose. If we listed every "graphic" image the list would be far too unwieldy. Mr.Z-man 22:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a miscommunication about this at Wikipedia:Options to not see an image#All_.22bad_images.22. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Autofellation drawing 2.svg and Image:Autofellation drawing 2.jpg

{{Mediawikiedit}} Image:Autofellation drawing 2.svg was used for vandalism by Plentifuls (talk · contribs), and Image:Autofellation drawing 2.jpg is the same image in a different format. I know they are only drawings but they are still offensive if used where they should not be. —Snigbrook 23:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

N.b. that the aforesaid user has been permanently blocked - don't see the need for addition here, but will let others chime in on this. SkierRMH (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done: Besides the fact that the user is already blocked, the first drawing is in legitimate use in the Autofellatio article. See Mr. Z-man's comment in the last section above about graphic drawings.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For adults only to see...

No one below 18 or 21 years old cannot see the image that is bad-looking (e.g. exposed male genitalia, exposed female genitalia, exposed female breast nipples.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.193.10 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

English please? 69.106.236.133 (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I can easily disprove this - you are claiming that there exist no people younger than 18 or 21 who are unable to see images that show exposed genitalia. I reiterate - blind people younger than 18 (just like those older than that) can't see anything, including exposed genitalia. --NetRolller 3D 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)</sarcasm>

Useless List

Can anyone actually verify that this list serves to prevent or reduce vandalism in any way whatsoever? I mean, I understand the purpose, but is it effective in the long-term or does it simply force a vandal to pick another image to use / add to the list? Carson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

Depends on the sort of vandal. This is great for hardcore vandals who pick a particular image as their "mark", which is often not obscene in any way, e.g. the Squidward and Avril Lavigne vandals. That's because the point of their vandalism is to gain notoriety as "the Squidward vandal", and this list totally shuts them down. My sense is that more flexible spree vandals prefer not to spend too much time searching for more images and return to the same ones. For example, in response to the Main Page template vandal(s), some other users and I added every image that had been used. While it's hard to prove causation, the rate of vandalism subsequently dropped dramatically - and of course disappeared once the devs came up with cascading protection. In that way I would theorize that the list suppresses vandalism among hard-core vandals who are aware of the list and know that they will reach of point of diminishing returns.

On the other end of the spectrum of vandalism, I do think that this list helps with the most casual vandal, who wanders by the page list of sexual positions and thinks "It would awesome to put this image on butterfly! I am a leet hacker!" I think we've got almost all the explicit images in actual use on this list. Such vandals find that their genius plan to inflict chaos upon society doesn't do much, which might prevent them from moving on to more serious vandalism.

I don't think this list does much for moderately-invested vandals, who are willing to go find unlisted items on Commons and don't care which image they use. Some of the images here were undoubtedly added by vandals who have moved on, which is why I would advise a fairly liberal policy of removal.

Of course most of this is based on nothing but my observation of this list in action, so I may be completely wrong about all of this. - BanyanTree 04:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you're correct, this list serves no legitimate purpose. In my opinion, it's just a forum for offended users to post images that they want censored/removed. In fact, I'm surprised that the images of Muhammad aren't listed here, since in the minds of many people, those images are "disruptive". Notice that most images on this page are merely of a graphic nature (and are hence highly descriptive and useful in articles), and are not by any stretch of the imagination attempts at "vandalism".Fuzzform (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see how this "feature" is useful. Sure, it does prevent IP vandals from inserting penis images into high-use templates, but it does not prevent vandals with auto-confirmed accounts from uploading such images under a different name, or does it prevent them from replacing existing images with shock images. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So because it doesn't prevent all image vandalism, that makes it entirely useless? Mr.Z-man 01:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Image:Poilspubiens.jpg

We'd like to use this image on bikini waxing, and frankly I fail to see why it is on this list. I can point out a whole host of naked photos which are more likely to be used for vandalism than this, yet aren't on a restricted list. For instance, Image:Fremont Solstice Parade 3.jpg - I'm sure there's plenty of vandalism which could be done with a penis juggling. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I appear to have added it in bulk way back when we were responding to the rash of template vandalisms, rather than any particular incident. I'm not sure that I agree with your reasoning, as most image vandals appear to be pubescent boys who are titillated by woman parts and profess disgust of pictures of man parts and that image in particular lacks the shock value vandals prefers, but there's no particular reason to keep Image:Poilspubiens.jpg on if people want to see what will happen with it off. - BanyanTree 04:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And it was immediately used for vandalism once more shortly after it was removed from this list. Adding it back :/ (with the exceptions requested before).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg

This image has been hijacked for vandalism purposes by a group of frat boys from TKE known as "The Network". Their original main objective, according to their "manifesto", was to "expose the truth" about Camden, New Jersey, but it has now shifted, since I've stopped their attempts by having numerous pages semi-protected for 3+ months, to attacking any page I have ever touched. I'm not going to list every single diff they've created with this pic, but I'll list every article they've put it on, thus far, with a diff of it: Camden, New Jersey, Cooper River (New Jersey), Delaware River, Benjamin Franklin Bridge, E-ZPass, Tampa, Florida, Tampa Bay Rays, and Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel, though I may have missed an article or two. This started back in April on Camden, and has spread recently when editors, like myself, got tired of reverting their edits all the time. We constantly warn and block IPs (as seen here on WP:ANI and here on User:Horologium's talk page) but since they're across the country, they send 4 more when one is blocked. There is absolutely no reason a picture of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake should be on any page other than ones pertaining to said event or earthquakes in general. Could this picture be blacklisted, please, so editors like myself can get back to real work? Thanks! EaglesFanInTampa 18:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Added. It should probably be removed from the BIL ASAP, just as soon as this has all blown over. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I think this will all dissipate when the 3-month block is over, but I guess only time will tell. EaglesFanInTampa 22:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Masturbating_Amy.jpg

This image doesn't exist, yet it is on the list! --NetRolller 3D 19:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops... it looks like putting a bad image inside a heading results in completely messed up rendering... --NetRolller 3D 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons.[1] - auburnpilot talk 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Killer

{{editprotected}} I know its non-free (so technically it shouldn't even BE on other pages per a somewhat unrelated circumstance), but due to the circumstances I've noticed involving that IWF block and such, anyone think Image:Virgin Killer.jpg should be on here? ViperSnake151 15:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, unless there's a specific issue with this image, we shouldn't be adding it to the blacklist. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To be specific, I would recommend being reactive to disruptive use in this case, both per normal practice and to avoid unnecessarily giving the Foundation more headaches by feeding press headlines like "Wikipedia's own censorship list labels controversial child porn album cover 'bad'! Hypocrisy revealed!" If ever there was a time to wish that the devs had acted on the bugzilla request to move this page to "restricted image list"... - BanyanTree 00:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well, no reason to change normal procedure here. Mr.Z-man 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to add it in a way that it's kept of certain pages like the main page's templates, user pages, and a few others. Also a script by Mr z man that is mentioned on options not to see images, uses the bad image list to hide the images from those who would rather not have a shock with their morning edit.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It can't be used on Main Page templates, as those are cascade protected from the Main Page. Other vandalism or disruptive use of the image would be a cause to put it on the list. As described on Wikipedia:Options to not see an image#All "bad images", Z man's script does not obligate this list to act as a censor. This page lists images that are subject to disruptive use. Full stop.

If nobody has used this image disruptively, it's not going on the list. I, among other admins, would be happy to add it if and when this happens but this page is acceptable to a wide range for editors precisely because it refuses to act as a censor for "controversial" images, and I am more conscious of this precisely because of the moral panic around this image. Frankly, if the controversial image used in the most popular article on the site for the past few days hasn't been used for vandalism yet, one might reach a preliminary conclusion that it's not really attractive to vandals.- BanyanTree 22:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It also is a non-free image so for that reason it also will never be on the main page. Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, quite right. I didn't even consider that we were discussing something besides vandalism. Fair use images cannot be used in anything but articles, so that includes user pages, talk pages, etc, so you should have no worries on that score. - BanyanTree 23:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading this, I'm worried Jimmy may have spilled the beans. I'm inclined to restrict the image to the articles Virgin Killer and Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When the image is abused, yes. When it's not, no. Jimbo's comment is irrelevant in regard to this list. Garion96 (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

please allow these pictures

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scrotum2.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nippleejac.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Facialejac.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Condompull.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erection.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vagin.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corps_caverneux.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scrotum.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glanspenis.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glans.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peniserection.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Penisaurepos.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frein.png http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vulve.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gland.jpg

Not a chance within the next few millenia. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Trim list of deleted images

{{editprotected}} Please remove the following non-existant images from the list:

• Image:Male pubic hair.JPG
• Image:ErectHumanPenis.jpg

As I added the {{badimage}} tags to some of the image description pages, I annoyingly get spammed when they're deleted. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Those images were already removed, one over a week ago. Please clear your cache to see the updated page. Thanks, BanyanTree 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Poilspubiens.jpg in mons pubis

I want to use File:Poilspubiens.jpg in mons pubis, I think the image fits perfectly the article, ilustrating that body part with its most natural look... Actually, I don't think that image should be listed here at all: pornographic means "graphic prostitution" , that's sex+money+graphics. There is no sex involved in the nude non-aroused, not morbidly opened body part pictured in poilspubiens.jpg, so even if there was money involved it wouldn't be prostitution, just nudism and perhaps some erotism--20-dude (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. The list is not related to pornography, only disruptive editing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Vagina

We would like to use File:TwilaB_0814.jpg on Vagina please consider --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 05:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose

This page is completely against everything that Wikipedia stands for. It encourages censorship, and nothing else. Fuzzform (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lies. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This list is based on the premise that "vandalism" and "disruption" are synonymous (note the link at the top of the page). When someone personally finds an image objectionable, for whatever subjective reason ("bad taste", religiously offensive, etc.), they label the image as "disruptive", and therefore the image constitutes "vandalism". For example, a user might post a "graphic" (i.e. disgusting) picture of fecal matter on the Feces article. The image might then be labeled "disruptive", and hence an attempt at "vandalism", even if it is well-intentioned and of great descriptive value. Going by this logic, a user who finds images of Muhammad offensive might label the images as "disruptive" and/or "vandalism"... which, needless to say, they most certainly are not. Thus, this list is just a place for offended, censorship-loving users to compile images that they personally don't like. There is absolutely no reason for this page to exist - it's just a clearinghouse for images that certain users personally dislike. Fuzzform (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give an example when this sequence of events has in fact occurred? Algebraist 00:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The purpose of this list is not to prevent the legitimate use of graphic images - it's to prevent users adding graphic images to inappropriate articles for kicks, giggles and shock value. Someone inserting a hi-res picture of an ejaculating penis at the top of Pokemon article, or into a template that's transcluded onto hundreds of pages, for example. Most of the images on the list (as far as I am aware) are only on the list in the first place because someone has been screwing around with them in this manner and it's either been flagged up here or the reverting admin has added it themselves. Faeces *should* contain a picture of a lump of human faeces (well, if there is one available on Commons and there's consensus for it on that article's talk page). On the other hand, Chautauqua County, New York (I just hit 'random article') shouldn't. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Image on bad image list causes other parts of article to vanish?

I tried adding Image:Wiki-pegging.png to Strap-on dildo#Common uses, and thanks to it being on this list, it did not show up... however, it also makes the entire next paragraph vanish every time. So, it seems there's two issues here:

1) The next paragraph shouldn't vanish! This seems like a serious technical issue.

2) Why is this image on this list? Is someone really going to use a drawing of a girl pegging a guy for vandalism, rather than, say, adding it to other dildo-related articles?

3) Shouldn't there be something on the image page warning users that they can't use the image anywhere? It would have been nice to know there would be a problem before spending 2 days trying to figure out where the heck I made a typo...

Bushytails (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I added an exception for that page. The current system sucks — everybody knows this. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

{{Badimage}} added to the image page. The person who first added the pic to the list should've done that at the time. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So what's with the entire next paragraph vanishing as well? This seems like a major bug in the code somewhere... Bushytails (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Put the test code in a sandbox? But $10 says urdoinitwrong. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's as good of sandbox as any, right? Example (you'll need to look at the source):

thumb

A random line of text - The purple elephant flew with the singing dishwasher.

More random text - Don't take that door, it leads to next friday.

Bushytails (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC) - Where'd the two lines of random text before my signature go?

I see what you mean there and I honestly have no idea why it's doing that. I've never seen that happen before. Perhaps you should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)?

So, in it's current state, is there anything missing from the Strap-on dildo article? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) pointed me to Bug #16039.... MZMcBride: Want my paypal address?  :) Bushytails (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File:01011674c.jpg

Image has been used for vandalism by Special:Contributions/84.9.46.201, was deleted on Commons but has now been undeleted as it's used in Autofellatio article. —Snigbrook 19:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

how our baby has grown!

According to our instructions at the top of the page, we have a recommended size max of 10 kb. The search function tells me the list is now 12 kb. Anybody want to take a stab at removals, or shall I have a go? - BanyanTree 10:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just removed that note about performance. I checked the archives and I see nothing indicating that's there any need to worry about performance. Now, perhaps the list should be trimmed for other reasons, but list size causing site performance problems does not seem to be one. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Starling added the original performance notice, which I would tend to treat as gospel unless a dev tells me different. I've started a threat at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#size limit and site performance at the bad image list to seek clarification. - BanyanTree 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm a happy camper now. Not that I don't think this list couldn't do with some trimming, but the performance thing seems to have been cleared up. - BanyanTree 21:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Conwh.jpg

I'm not sure whether I should report this problem here, at ANI, or at RPP. For about a week now, a variety of IP users have changed the Starbucks logo on the Starbucks article to the above image, a parody. It's fine for the article it's currently being used in (Kieron Dwyer), but clearly it doesn't need to keep showing up elsewhere. Given the variety of IPs involved, I'm not sure blocking anyone's going to do anything, and the level of other vandalism isn't particularly high, so semi-protection seems like overkill. Thus, I wonder if it'd be easiest just to add this particular fair use image to the BIL. It'll certainly circumvent the repeated vandalism on the Starbucks article, and there are seemingly very few other articles it would ever need to be approved for. Thoughts? Esrever ^(klaT) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm an old fogey but I consider the rate of vandalism and agenda-driven editing on that article, which you characterize as not "particularly high", to be absurd. I'd be happy to add it but it's unlikely File:Conwh.jpg would qualify for an indefinite stay on this list. I've put a week-long semi-protection of the article to give the people watching that page a breather and see if the image vandals get a life. If they return, post back here and we can put the image up for a bit. - BanyanTree 06:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the help. I guess my standards have just gotten skewed over the years! Esrever ^(klaT) 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Malefellatio2.jpg and File:Masturbation orgasm.jpg

These two images have been used as vandalism by Ironasstasiyaruoa. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First deleted as missing source information for 7 days. Second deleted per commons:template:nopenis. Thanks, BanyanTree 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:MidUlsterEnglish.png

This image has quite a few problems:

• It is completely inaccurate and leaves out one language's status in favour of another, which, given the problems with Northern Ireland-related articles, can be problematic. The image simply is not accurate.
• The licence given for the image isn't right as this is not the author's own work and is copyrighted to Oxford University Press 1988.

--Theosony (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this was speedy deleted "18:01, 14 February 2009" as copyvio. - BanyanTree 03:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:RopeMarks at BoundCon 2008.jpg

This image has been used as vandalism by Mr. Peck. See this edit. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also used as vandalism by YesOn8 (talk · contribs) at Violence against women [2] (which has a recent history of image vandalism, including other images)-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just coming here to do the same thing myself. Since the drooling idiot responsible for posting it on my talk page knew exactly how it was listed, I'm pretty sure he's responsible for uploading it as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Y Done — Hex (❝?!❞) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the image to the list. There are a couple more, which are File:Human Scrotum.JPG, File:Erect penis uncut.jpg, File:Testicle-cat.jpg, File:Illu testis surface.jpg, File:Illu testis cross section.jpg, and File:Gray1148.png, which have been used as vandalism at User talk:PMDrive1061 in this edit. In this edit, File:Erect penis uncut.jpg was used for disruption. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added File:Erect penis uncut.jpg and File:Human Scrotum.JPG. While I'm not against putting up the other images if they are used in a pattern of disruption, an anatomical photo or drawing of testicles doesn't look like anything in particular and don't seem to be particularly good candidates for the list. - BanyanTree 06:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough. I don't find any of the other images particularly offensive. Thanks for the quick response! Best, Cunard (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please allow File:Human Scrotum.JPG to be used on the Testicle article again. It's taken me a while to work out why it stopped working. Thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I would guess that I blanked out when I read testicle on the image page, then switched tabs to write the exception next to File:Human Scrotum.JPG and wrote scrotum instead. Sorry. I get those two mixed around all the time. ;) - BanyanTree 07:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the name "Bad image list"

Why is this called a "bad image" list in the first place? The images themselves are neither good nor bad, but just images. How about changing this to "controversial image list" instead?--Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 1#Name and MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 3#MediaWiki:Abused image list? before going to Bugzilla 14281 : Suggestion: Rename "Bad image list" to better title, logging in and adding a vote so the devs give it some attention. - BanyanTree 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Image Use Request

Can an administrator please make any images on the bad image list which are already allowed for use in Prince Albert piercing and Christina piercing also available for use in Genital modification and mutilation or at least one appropriate image from both categories that illustrate the concept "Genital modification and mutilation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.69.71 (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added exceptions for the three images on the list that meet the criteria you outline. - BanyanTree 04:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Closeup of female breast

Could someone remove Image:Closeup of female breast.jpg from the list? The image is very tasteful and I don't see how could it be used for disruption.

If someone disagrees, at least allow its use in Glands of Montgomery. Nikola (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Never underestimate the immaturity of some Wikipedia users. In any case, I'm removed it and we'll see what happens. That is actually one of the most venerable items, having been added three and a half years ago. - BanyanTree 10:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)