MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about MediaWiki:Bad image list. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Image:John_Wayne_Bobbitt_lawyer.jpg

After looking at this, I think it may be used to vandalize or troll despite that there is a real disembodied penis in this picture.--Hundred-Man 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

removal of Image:Naked yoga.jpg

Regarding the removal of Image:Naked yoga.jpg, this was added as it was actually being targeted for vandalism. (See archive.) In cases such as these, should we readd or just let it lie and see if we get another complaint? - Banyan Tree 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed a few of the tamer (and missing/corrupt) images the other day, ones that were barely, if at all in use anywhere. This was one of them. IMHO, it was the least tame of the bunch, but compared with other non-blocked images it's nothing. This list is supposed to be kept short, and is used to combat active issues, or images with a high abuse potential, I just don't see it with this one. While I have no doubt that RJASE1 had a good reason for recomending it last time, the archive entry didn't cite any specific problems or level of activity. If you want to re-add it, I'm not going to wheel over it though. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We're on the same page on this image, I think. I figured it was worth double-checking as I don't recall an image being taken off that was added for a specific reason. Let's wait to see if it reappears.- Banyan Tree 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flesh.jpg

Some concerns about this image have been voiced; does anyone believe it needs to be on the list? Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 13:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Riana, can you link to the discussion? This list is really to prevent images being used as shock images for vandalism, not as a way to enforce a consensus on whether or not to use an image on a particular page. I don't see this image as a likely shock image. Cheers, Mak (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, to be honest. It seems perfectly innocent to me, and quite relevant to the articles it's in. It was a discussion on IRC so I can't link it. I'm just bringing it up to keep people happy, truth be told :) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Does not appear to be actively used for vandalism, not a likely image to vandalize with. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hanging DeathErection01.jpg

Can someone list this image Image:Hanging DeathErection01.jpg? --Blake3522 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are two other images like this (...02, and ...03). Are these being used for any actual vandalism? These are all recently uploaded, and contain IMHO questionable licensing. They are all orphaned to articles as well. You may be better off getting the submitter to cite their source of the public-domain license, if not, they can all likely be deleted in their entirety. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Had no source information. --Blake3522 08:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

request

{{editprotected}} Image:Fellatio.png except for Fellatio, Oral sex and List of sex positions. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - Alison ☺ 03:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is currently in use on other pages, including part of the featured article for Portal:Pornography. It is also a drawing, of pretty much the same degree as everything else in commons:Category:Fellatio. Is it being used to actively harrass someone here on en:, or is there another reason why it would be most likely to? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also ensured it's still allowed in the portal gallery. It's been repeatedly used in vandalism and harassment and is currently a topic on WP:ANI - Alison ☺ 03:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across it once during a recent changes patrol, and later tonight, I see a discussion at AN/I suggesting this course of action. Perhaps it is appropriate to except for... for the articles, titles it is currently used on as well. A couple of diffs were provided at AN/I I'll repost them here

[1] [2]

Regards, Navou ^banter 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I just saw it on there, but while it does appear to have been used for shock vandalism, it was only used by one ip, and they have been blocked. Perhaps we could start putting a time to live note on these? (see new section below). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, though. I've seen this one used again and again. It's a favourite among certain sock-vandals - Alison ☺ 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad Image "policy" suggestions ?

Other then the "keep the list short" there doesn't seem to be many rules regarding the use of this page, other then our good common sense that is :) Would anyone else think we should hammer out some solid inclusion requirements for this list though? Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh! That's going to be fun. One person's "bad image" is another person's high art. We've had a similar issue regarding offensive usernames over on WP:RFCN for so long now. As you say, it's running on common sense right now & I'm not really seeing a problem with the way it is currently. Is there one? - Alison ☺ 03:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, and I'm not trying to suggest content-based inclusion criteria, simply usage or potential usage based ones. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Would having the person adding the image puting a review or expiration date on the "less shocking" types of images be helpful? For an example, see this dif, I checked to ensure it would not break processing. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very sensible suggestion indeed. Kinda like the protection scheme; a suitable expiry time until the current issue (vandalism or whatever) is over. Good plan! - Alison ☺ 03:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it time to see if anyone else wants to chime in on this. The biggest issue I've seen is that something gets added for a good reason, but for a specific temporary problem (e.g. plastering Squidward iamges all over) but then either gets forgotten or gets cleaned off the list by somone without a clue what happened. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, one criterion used in many places is nudity which is not for medical/educational purposes. Therefore I suggest that images involving human nudity be considered bad except for articles that use this image specifically for informative purposes. Obviously, other rules are needed for violence, horror etc. Nimman 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to disagree with you. Why should human nudity be considered bad? Isn't human nudity a celebration of the human body? It is primitive to feel ashamed about our human bodies. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add

{{editprotected}} Please add Image:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-male.jpg to the list. Here is a diff of it used in vandalism. [3] --AAA! (AAAA) 04:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - Alison ☺ 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:DoublePenetration.svg

Image:DoublePenetration.svg is an svg version of Image:Doublepen.png which is on the list. For consistency, it should probably be disallowed except on List of sex positions. --Sopoforic 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Krimpet 21:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:AswadStoning.jpg

Image:AswadStoning.jpg is an image of a young girl being smashed in the head with rocks. It is currently being inserted inline at the top of an article so that unsuspecting readers are given no choice but to view it. Requesting that it not be allowed to be an inline image in any article. Cshay 11:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is currently only being used at Du’a Khalil Aswad, where it is arguably relevant to the article; whether or not to include it there is a content decision that should be made at the relevant discussion pages. Are there any other articles where it is being used in an irrelevant, inappropriate fashion? --Krimpet 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Glans penis

Could you add Image:Glans Penis by David Shankbone.jpg to the Talk page for glans penis as acceptable for it to be used there? There is going to be an RfC over which photos to use, the other two are not on the Bad Image list, and I'd like to include this one in the gallery for the vote. --David Shankbone 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Krimpet 21:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Will ^(talk) 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested additions

Please add Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG (with exception for Ejaculation. Also please add Image:Keeani Lei 6.jpg (not currently used on en Wikipedia, but has been used for vandalism). Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, Banyan Tree 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that listing on this page does not work for video OGGs, such as the one listed above. Is this a technical limitation? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I created User:BanyanTree/Image test with the image wikimarkup at ejaculation, and it appears that the restriction is working appropriately. Is there some other page where there is a problem? - Banyan Tree 08:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I went back and checked, and the image I saw used for vandalism was not the above; it turns out the vandal used Image:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration Animated.GIF, which is another version. That one, currently just used on Talk:Ejaculation, should probably be added here also. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Location of Template:Badimage

Should {{badimage}} be located on the image description page, or on the image's talk page? The current instructions advise using the talk page, but actual usage is mixed. Any suggestions? Gracenotes^T § 18:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Or alternatively, it may not make much of a difference. Standardization tends to be good, in my opinion. Gracenotes^T § 19:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Anus 2.jpg

Requesting that Image:Anus 2.jpg also be permitted for use in the Perineum article (someone has placed it in the gallery but it's obviously not displaying). Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies pictures

Done Not done

Hello, Image:Three fried eggs.jpg and Image:Maniac Mansion (Commodore 64) box front cover art.jpg are commonly used by sockpuppeteer Mmbabies, see WP:LTA/MMB. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the C64 game per the LTA page, but no mention of the eggs there, got any diffs? This is to be a temporary measure, please remove in 30 days. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Diffs with the egg pic

On John Hankee Talk
On Kellie Copeland Talk (this has happened to her page multiple times)

And I would ask that the eggs picture have its resolution at least halved due to its size and disruptive ability. Nate 09:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a list of every image used for vandalism (which would be futile); it is a list of such offensive or not-safe-for-work-or-school images. —Centrx→talk • 20:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this is a unique case though; we have been trying to revert this user's constant vandalism for the last ten months through 200 IPs, and these pictures are the ones he consistently uses for vandalism and disruption. We are trying this as a last-ditch effort to dissuade Mmbabies, because semi-protects of the entirety of Houston television articles and range blocks on the entire Houston address space of AT&T haven't worked. We're not asking for every image he's ever used to be protected from use on other pages, just these two. Nate 21:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

He can simply use any other image. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Giveit" images

Based on the discussion at WP:AN/I#Give us your f**king money, I have added the following images: Image:Giveit.jpg, Image:Giveit.png, and Image:Giveit.svg. These satire images were being used for article vandalism and should probably be removed from this list once the current fundraising campaign has ended. -- Satori Son 18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do the exceptions serve any purpose? I don't want anyone seeing this on any Wikipedia page. Site visitors may not understand the difference between user space and mainspace. It reflects poorly on the project to have such childish nonsense around. Friday (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the exceptions, but I do not disagree with them. My opinion is that there is no policy that prohibits editors from using colorful language in an obvious satire on their own userpage. Distasteful, perhaps, but not prohibited.

Others disagree. You may wish to see the above linked debate at the admins' notice board. -- Satori Son 03:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

They're gone. -- Satori Son 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tyler Faith 2.jpg

Request addition of the above image (not currently used on en Wikipedia); it was used for vandalism. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Satori Son 03:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Where, when, to what extent? This list is supposed to be kept small, so we really need a way to judge these. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it probably shouldn't be used on the Tyler Faith article per WP:WPPORN#Structure; for porn performers we normally don't use images with exposed breasts or genitalia. The image could probably have some encyclopedic use on articles such as Breasts or Pornography - an exception could be requested here if that was desired. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I should note that I'm the uploader of this particular image. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree this list should be kept small, but temporary additions for anti-vandalism efforts can be very helpful. This image has apparently been deleted, but somehow a glitch allows it to keep showing up; see Talk:Tyler Faith as evidence. When the deletion finally sticks, I'll remove from the list here. -- Satori Son 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just showing as deleted because it was originally on en Wikipedia but was moved to Commons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, didn't think of that. Well, I still feel comfortable leaving it on here - I guess permanently? The purpose of the list, as I understand it, is to include any risqué or potentially offensive image that has been used for vandalism, and this seems to fit. If another admin disagrees, please go ahead and revert and discuss. Thanks, Satori Son 05:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Human penis both flaccid and erect.jpg

This has bad news written all over it. It's already been used to attack my talk and user pages, repeatedly today. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I might say we could go ahead and add it, but it looks like it's up for deletion; wait for a conclusion on that, first, perhaps? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this deletion discussion is taking place, as I can't find it; but I suggest adding this image to the list anyway, if it hasn't been already. If it gets deleted, it won't matter, but as long as it exists it should be restricted to certain articles only. Terraxos (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Must have survived the discussion, it's still around. I say we should go ahead and add it. delldot talk 14:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This was used to vandalize 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike, so it looks like this is a persistent problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twigboy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Added to the list. - auburnpilot talk 02:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bbefore after.jpg

(Erect penises)

~~Look where this image links to!~~ Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Disregard notification. Was only applicable for less than 1 hour of New Year's Day. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ejaculate.JPG

~~Look where this image links to!~~ Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Disregard. Was only applicable for less than 1 hour of New Year's Day. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Erection Homme.jpg

Please allow Image:Erection Homme.jpg to be displayed on the Penis article. Kieral (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 03:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could this image Image:Erection Homme.jpg also be allowed on the Circumcision article please. Beejaypii (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. - Banyan Tree 20:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Keeani Lei 5.jpg

Please allow Image:Keeani Lei 5.jpg to be displayed on the Brazilian waxing article. 68.62.20.94 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on this. The user making the request, who is apparently making good faith, constructive edits, recently violated the third point of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Structure, restricting usage of images showing breasts or genitalia to porn actor's articles. (I have since reverted.) While this is a minor incident as the image was already on Commons, the community of which is more liberal on explicit images than that of English Wikipedia, it does point to a lack of unfamiliarity with what is considered reasonable use of potentially controversial images on this wiki. Related to the Wikiproject guideline, I am somewhat leery of using an image that also shows a face, especially when there are several images, both of males and females, at commons:Category:Shaved genitalia that do not show a face and are not on this list. If 68.xx is set on using this particular image for the article, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask for some sort of discussion consensus at Talk:Brazilian waxing supporting its usage. Not done. Banyan Tree 11:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

hi, I was not aware of that list commons:Category:Shaved genitalia and the above policy. Can you crop the image Image:Nyce0001.jpg so that this image can be used in her article as it looks lke author User:Webwarlock was having a really hard time finding a free image of this person. 68.62.20.94 (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued at User talk:68.62.20.94#Image:Nyce0001.jpg, as it no longer concerns actions with the bad image list. - Banyan Tree 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{editprotected}} Can someone add to the Christina piercing image and Human piercing flaccid images the following text - "Except at User:Solumeiras/Human images 1 and any pages in User:Solumeiras userspace.

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no "human piercing flaccid" image listed. It isn't possible to add an entire userspace as an exception, and I don't see why it should be necessary to add exceptions for individual user pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The one exception we've made is for photographers who wish to show galleries of the images they've taken in their user space. This doesn't appear to be such a case. - Banyan Tree 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's very reasonable. Thanks for filling me in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Erect1.jpg

Just bringing this one to everyone's attention. Brianga (talk)

edit to add the following from the same user: Image:Circerection.jpg, Image:Circerection2.jpg, Image:Circflaccid.jpg. Brianga (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lathebathe.jpg

Shock image, already used as such. Though the image does not have information on its copyright status, so is probably going to be deleted soon (after 18 March 2008). --Van helsing (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled1.jpg

The image Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled1.jpg has been used for vandalism on an article. The Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg is on the list, should this image also be on it? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MalePenis.jpg

I would like to request that the picture: MalePenis.jpg be allowed to be posted on the article Penis. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 01:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flaccid-erect.jpg

I would like to request that the picture: Flaccid-erect.jpg be allowed to be posted on the article Penis. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 23:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Virgin Killer.jpg

Should this one be added? Controversial cover of a 1976 album of The Scorpions. Could offend people. Currently mentioned in an article on the Signpost. - Face 18:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say not. Its use in the article Virgin Killer is a content dispute best discussed on that article's talk page, and I'm not aware of anyone trying to use it anywhere else. Come back if someone does decide to start spamming the image onto other pages, and if simply blocking and reverting doesn't seem to be working. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it removed from the Virgin Killer article. I just thought this was a page of all images that could be disruptive to some (e.g. usefull for primary school proxy servers). Apparently it only contains the most controversial stuff, but wouldn't it be a good idea to have a list with all images on WP that might offend people? Is there such a list? Cheers, Face 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because that would be a nearly infinite list unless you specified the group to which it would offend. Imagine: genitalia, breasts, women not in dresses, women with uncovered hair, pubic hair, graphic timelines showing the Earth to be more than 4000 years old, men without beards, meals combining meat and dairy products, obese people, disabled people, dead people, bodily fluids, people in distress or pain, animals in pain or distress, depictions of Muhammad, medical procedures, medical diagrams, depictions of people practicing the 'wrong' religion, animals used for food, etc etc etc. This page prudently stays away from making judgments calls about "objectionable" material, and sticks to "used for disruption" criterion, or at least an "appears irresistible to 13 year olds who take giggling about boobies into their Wikipedia editing" criterion. - Banyan Tree 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pubic hair.jpg and Vulva1.jpg

Please allow the images: Image:Pubic hair.jpg ad Image:Vulva1.jpg be posted on the article: Vulva. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abused image list?

I was thinking that perhaps MediaWiki:Abused image list would be a more appropriate page name, considering that it is not the images themselves that are to be considered "bad," but rather how the editors are using them. —C. Raleigh (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough, but it's not something we can change locally. You may want to file the suggestion on bugzilla. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. —C. Raleigh (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See also MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 1#Name for related discussion. - Banyan Tree 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Restricted" is a better name, since that is what happens. An image listed here is not necessarily abused. —Centrx→talk • 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please go to Bugzilla 14281 Suggestion: Rename "Bad image list" to better title to register your preference. - Banyan Tree 02:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Phair.jpg

Image was used for vandalism on several articles linked on the main page, see Special:Contributions/97.81.67.187. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. Thanks, Banyan Tree 13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)