MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 5

Waxed Pudenda aka shaved bush

Can someone add http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Waxed_pudenda.jpg The picture in question is being used only as a en.wikipedia users image. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:WebHamster . Thanks! TharsHammar (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This situation does not appear to fall within the scope of this page. Not done.

I would recommend asking the user in question to remove the image, explaining that you find the image offensive. If needed, you may point to the line about as being "inconsiderate" under Wikipedia:User page#Inappropriate content. If the user in question rejects your request, you are free to ask for a second opinion at WP:AN or a page within the dispute resolution process. If you believe that the material is "extremely offensive" you have the option of removing the image unilaterally, but experience suggests that you would be promptly reverted and the subsequent discussion will be both more heated and less productive than if you simply asked politely first. - Banyan Tree 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked politely, explaining how the image was offensive and inapproriate for a userpage. The user rejected my request and said Your bible belt prudery is your problem, not mine.. TharsHammar (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have the other options outlined. This list is not meant to police a single user's user page choices. - Banyan Tree 23:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm... I'm just passing through, but wondered about the 'scope' thing - isn't this pic rather similar to this one already on the list? (although I don't really know why that image is on the list). That would seem to fit the description at the top. Truth is I find it very hard to figure out where the line is, and it would seem to me that sexually explicit material generally qualifies, no? Privatemusings (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a blurry line though criteria have gradually become more strict over the past few years. Most new additions are made after actually being used for vandalism, and the odd addition for "similarity" tends to be either close-ups for male genitalia and spread-legged closeups of female genitalia. (Vandals seem to find a full-screen penis hilarious in all circumstances but are more fickle when it comes to women.) In my experience, File:Waxed_pudenda.jpg is questionable on the "substantial likelihood" grounds, and this list has always tried to be conservative to minimize the calls of "censorship!" that appear on this talk page.

The original poster was not reporting vandalism but was in effect stating, if I might go out on a limb, "A user has an image on his user page that I don't like and he won't take it down, so put it on this list and I can avoid a straightforward argument further along in the dispute resolution process." I wouldn't do such a thing on principle and, even if I did, I would add an exception for the user page in question to avoid taking a side in the dispute, which would not please the original poster in any case. Not that I think the complaint is not without merit; in my opinion, that use of that image is boorish and juvenile at best, and a broader community discussion may result in consensus that it is disruptive and should be removed. But no single admin, including me, should be eager to make that decision in a borderline case, and this page is not the proper forum to have a discussion on what is appropriate in the user space in any case. WP:AN/I and WP:VPP is that way.

If an image on the list is similar to that is not, and the one off the list has been around without incident for awhile, that would be an argument to remove the one listed here. I would be favorable if you wished to make a request and see what happens. - Banyan Tree 08:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are going out on a very thin limb. Wikipedia:Vandalism states in its opening paragraph "Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor." You yourself just said "use of that image is boorish and juvenile at best." This project page states "To be included on the list, the image either (i) was used for vandalism or (ii) is similar to images already on the list such that there is a substantial likelihood that the image will be used for disruption" so I brought the matter here, where you, in effect stated, if I might go out on a limb, that your own personal sexist criteria for vandalism/obsence is where full male frontal nudity is more vandalisciousness than full female frontal nudity. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't help that Wikipedia vandals are sexist. They like to add penis images more than any other image. Besides, if the image in question would be on the list an exception would be made for this userpage. For more drama please read this closed discussion. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive190#nudie pics on user pages, User talk:Jimbo Wales#User page rights versus maintaining a professional atmosphere- any opinions?, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:WebHamster and Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Require link to usertalk page in signatures?. How did that turn into the wiki Drama of the Week? Sheesh, that's even more of a SNAFU than I expected.

TharsHammer, I apologize if I came to the wrong conclusion. A user opposing an image used in the userspace would normally ask for deletion of the user page and/or seek administrative action against the editor specifically. These are all more effective than using this list because it is possible to nail down the concern to a particular user and page, which is not the case for vandals who create throw away accounts and/or use rotating IPs to vandalize multiple pages, which is the sort of disruption this list was created to halt. Upon reflection, your request falls into the realm of possible reactions to a sincere concern of this type. Note that the paragraph you are quoting from at WP:V ends "into articles". A user page is not an article, and most policies that are designed for the main namespace to not apply to pages that are not articles. Wikipedia users have historically had nearly free reign when it comes to what they put in their own user space. And if you doubt that vandals are less selective when choosing images of male genitalia for vandalism, I encourage you to go through the history of this list and the archives of this talk page. - Banyan Tree 10:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand this. Why is [1] this file on the banned images list but this [2] file is not? It makes no sense, in fact it is skirting the rules because the File that is not banned is "edited from" the original file, but it seems to not be changed at all. I would really like a coherent expliation for why Brazilian Wax is on the banned images list but Waxed pudenda is not! If you look back through the history of this page, the Brazilian Wax was there for a long time. It was added March 7, 2008 [3]. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same day that the waxed file was created! [4] TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 00:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{unindent)The addition does not provide an informative summary, but I seem to recall some vandalism over a number of pages involving this image some ago. The short answer to your question is probably just that - images are added here when they're being used for vandalism. It's probably time it was removed - it's a fairly unlikely image for image vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The next day after the image BrazilianWax was added here an exact same image was created at waxed pudena by the user whose user page it is now on!! TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you see nothing wrong with that blatent violation of the intentions of this list? An exemption wasn't asked for, as this page requires, only a new image which basically amounted to a re-naming of the file. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 02:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it in quite opposite terms I think. This list is attended by a small number of admins, and is for stopping widespread disruption by vandals. We here do not dictate whether one particular use is inappropriate, but act according to what would be the uncontested consensus of the community in stopping vandalism. It works very well, probably because we steer well clear of anything controversial - if someone asks for an exemption they are normally granted it without question. We are keen to avoid any accusations of censorship, because Wikipedia doesn't do censorship. Deciding whether one particular usage is inappropriate, to be enforced by this list, is something to be decided by a wider community. In this case there is clearly no such consensus. There is also no widespread disruption from abuse of this image, in either form - this list follows blocks and protections in order of things to try, and in this case they are also prominently lacking. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you see no request was asked for, the user simply copied the file to a new location. If you read the top of the page it says "To be included on the list, the image either (i) was used for vandalism or (ii) is similar to images already on the list such that there is a substantial likelihood that the image will be used for disruption. The list includes a mechanism to allow posting of listed images to specific pages." I also see that the mechanism is to "Requests for additions, removals, or exceptions should normally be made on this page." I guess I was under the false impression that the people liked to follow the rules. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not rules but an explanation of the usual procedure. Exemptions don't need to be asked for, though that's the usual way they get on the list. When an image is added, all pages which use it at the time will usually be added as exemptions. I was responsible for writing that bit about adding requests. It's intended to convey that there's usually no big deal just making a request here. It's not intended to prevent an admin unilaterally adding an image after vandalism, or to prevent someone from starting a community discussion, for example at WP:AN, about whether an image should be added. And it's not intended as a requirement. Maybe I should tweak it again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penis00001.jpg

This image has been used as vandalism by 174.36.235.146. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks, Banyan Tree 11:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dog feces.jpg, File:Babypamper.jpg, File:Fresh cat feces.JPG, File:Abu ghraib feces 06a.jpg, and File:AbuGhraibScandalBrown55.jpg

File:Dog feces.jpg has been used in vandalism by 72.249.144.204, 72.249.126.110, 72.249.77.168, 206.123.89.147, 206.123.89.54, and 206.123.89.75. 206.123.89.75 has also used File:Babypamper.jpg in vandalism. File:Fresh cat feces.JPG has been used in vandalism by 72.249.126.110, etc. File:Abu ghraib feces 06a.jpg has been used in vandalism by 72.249.77.168, 206.123.89.147, etc. File:AbuGhraibScandalBrown55.jpg has also been used in vandalism by these IPs. Cunard (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the latter four, and I'll add the other if it's used again. A few months should suffice. My logs (no pun) from yesterday will show further extensive vandalism using these images. File:Type 2 stool.jpg is also part of this batch. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pussy.jpg

File:Pussy.jpg is being used solely for vandalism on the English Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It should be ok to remove it from the list in a couple of days. Garion96 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the way things are done here. When you say "done", what does that mean? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image to the list. See this edit. Garion96 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging bot

I've asked for a bot to keep the {{badimage}} tags synchronised with this list. The request is currently here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M-intercourse.jpg

Could someone get this onto the blacklist please? This is being used for vandalism. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Amalthea 03:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image:Sex intercourse.jpg

Another image being used for vandalism, see here Momo san ^Gespräch 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expiry dates added to most recent additions

Is there a reason that expiry dates are being added to the most recent additions? Many of those images, such as File:Pussy.jpg, belong on the list indefinitely. File:M-intercourse.jpg also should not be removed per the reasons that the other images on this list have no expiry time. Please remove the expiry times for File:00741.JPG, File:Abu ghraib feces 06a.jpg, File:AbuGhraibScandalBrown55.jpg, File:Babypamper.jpg, File:Fresh cat feces.JPG and File:Pussy.jpg. The likelihood that these images will be abused is very high. There is no reason to allow chronic trolls, who have been trolling the talk pages of Wikipedia contributors for over a year, to re-use these images in their next spate of vandalism. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The simple reason is that the longer that list gets, the less manageable it is. If we'd just want to have an exhaustive list of all images that are likely to be abused we could add all of commons:Category:Nudity and commons:Category:Feces, and then some. But that's not really how we want Wikipedia to work, just as we don't indef-protect all pages that ever had vandalism.
That's why I'd much rather handle this list with escalating durations. If an image that was on the list before is being abused for a fair amount of vandalism again, it can be added again with a longer duration. I'd think that images that are currently on pages like penis, vulva, or whereever you typical vandal will pick up pictures to abuse, should stay on indefinitely. With all the feces pictures though, I'd assume that that guy is gone in a month or so, and adding those images didn't proof very efficient anyway, did it? Commons:Category:Feces is just too well stocked.
Amalthea 11:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with your reasoning. The feces pictures aren't likely going to be abused again, but File:M-intercourse.jpg will be. Will you remove the expiry time from that image? Cunard (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that image, and the account who uploaded it, I doubt that the uploader owns copyright to it. I'm of a mind to start a deletion discussion on the three remaining pictures he uploaded.
In any case, M-intercourse is a picture that can certainly be abused, yes. And I don't think we'll ever see it used in an article. But has it been used for "widespread vandalism where blocks and protections are impractical"? I've only seen it being used on one IP talk page, by the one anon himself. Looking at Commons, there are 134 pictures in Category:Shaved genitalia alone. Thousands in Category:Erotic, Category:Female genitalia, Category:Male reproductive system, …. Do you really want them all blacklisted? Half the pictures there are as likely to be used in vandalism as M-intercourse is. And that's only looking for uglies, there's Category:Vomiting, Category:Urinating, Category:Defacation, Category:Diseases — they are really well stocked over there.
What I'm saying is: Unless there's a strong reason to indefinitely include a picture in the list, we shouldn't. Personally, I would give *every* picture an expiration date, and when the date has passed I would remove it unless it's being used on a high-vandal-risk article (vulva, anus, penis, …). Removed images should go into some sort of archive where we note how often an image was under restriction, so that if it's being readded, the expiration time can be escalated (1 month, 3 months, 9 months). Amalthea 23:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that images that have been used for vandalism once should remain on the list indefinitely. Since these images have been found by vandals, the likelihood of them being re-used is very high, as many of these vandals are chronic trolls. Images used for vandalism are easily found either because the vandal uploaded the image or because the image has been used in an article. Blacklisting these images will reduce the level of trolling and vandalism. I don't want all the images in those categories blacklisted; I just want the ones that have been used in vandalism/trolling. You've seen that image used on one IP's talk page, but there have been many more. These IPs are proxies; see Zzuzz's contributions for more image vandalism by these IPs. Cunard (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly though, the likliness isn't infinite. Perhaps what you are arguing for is really "appropriately long" time limits. Do we have to wait until those vandals die, or what? Make the time limit 50 years if you must, but "indefinite" is a mistake. Klalkity (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Průjem.JPG

Another Bad image being used for vandalism by the 72.249.0.0/16 range. Momo san ^Gespräch 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} In addition to File:Průjem.JPG, File:Pubic hair and jewelry.jpg is also being abused by multiple proxy servers, including 72.249.127.86. Please add both to the list. Cunard (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rerequest if the problem is ongoing. I don't think this is the best way to deal with it though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anus tint.jpg and File:After Bleaching.jpg

{{Editprotected}} File:Anus tint.jpg and File:After Bleaching.jpg have been in vandalism by multiple proxy servers. See 72.249.104.212 for an example. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both

Done. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Full Brazilian.jpg

An obvious candidate, has been used for vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Breasts01.jpg

File:Breasts01.jpg has been vandalized on multiple talk pages. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly has it been used for vandalism? Garion96 (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually just discussing this on WP:AN. I don't see any vandalism, but at least three users are displaying this picture on their user or user talk pages inappropriately. [5] AniMate^talk 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read that discussion. I have no opinion (well I do sort of) on the display of these images on those userpages. It is however not being used for vandalism so I see no reason to add the image to this list. Garion96 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really confused on what arbitrarily decides what is and is not vandalism. From Wikipedia:Vandalism "Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value)." That reads like this image is clear cut vandalism issue, but that is not so according to Garion and others, why is that? Is it because the page in question is a user talk page? Or is it because the user put the image on their own talk page? Or is it because it is a picture of female breasts and not say, a male penis or a swastika or a picture of a black lynching. What draws the line on vandalism? TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 18:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that, if I remember the history correctly, File:Lynching-1889.jpg was being added by a bunch of sockpuppets and IP vandals on the Barack Obama article. The same happened with File:01011674c.jpg which was being placed on dozens of user pages. Basically all mass vandalism which was not the case here. Garion96 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you saw this on the same talk page were I noticed it, TharsHammer. I must say I was surprised to see it there, and I wondered whether it was appropriate. On the one hand, this is an encyclopedia and I question whether this type of decorative use of user talk pages is appropriate at all. On the other, there's nothing inherently offensive about female breasts. After all, most would probably not see File:T in topless.jpg as offensive. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I see someone has taken the liberty of removing the image from that talk page... This should be interesting. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lasted all of 11 minutes, and the edit summary used explains that the removal was vandalism! What a strange strange place! TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<< For what it's worth, I think it should be put on the image-list. The people fusspotting over whether it's appropriate to have on a userpage or not, aren't really engaging in writing an encyclopedia. Nor are they that likely to constructively do so, as far as I can see. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 19:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Wikipedia and its policies does not preclude contributing usefully to the project: some would argue that it is contributing usefully to the project. We're not only writing an encyclopedia; we're building one too. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A word from one of the 'fusspotters': I raised the same objection here last month on the same topic for the same reason, and a template was deleted. I have 265 featured content credits. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I said "fusspotters" I wasn't referring to people partaking in the policy discussion. I was referring to those who use the images in the first place, and to those who replace the images, "reverting vandalism" - sorry for the misunderstanding, Durova. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Actually it looks like all the uploader's contributions are copyvio. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty put off by this comment as well, so thank you for clarifying. AniMate^talk 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waxed pudenda.jpg|border|center|250px

Just got added to my user page by a vandal, obvious candidate. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this or a very similar image was already discussed up the page. This image is now being used by a serial vandal and sockpupeteer to vandalize user and talk pages, so it probably is time to add it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

heres a diff [6] Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here's an indication of how persistent this nut is [7]. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no action I notice. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is still only one vandal account. This doesn't seem to be a widespread problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, have there been any more recent incidents involving this image? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Male Pubic Hair.JPG

File:Male Pubic Hair.JPG has been used in vandalism by 93.173.165.222 and 90.213.53.53. Cunard (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --auburnpilot talk 23:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page move please

Bad image list seems inherently POV, shouldn't this be the Restricted image list? -- Banjeboi 08:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. How exactly would one go about getting this page moved in a non-breaking manner? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no objection we get an admin to move it, if it's a technicl issue support from technical village pump may be in order. -- Banjeboi 11:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a technical issue of course, and not one that can be solved on-site. The location of the bad image list is hardcoded in ImageFunctions.php, changing it would need to go through WP:bugzilla and has implications for all MediaWikis out there. Amalthea 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would seem to be worth it even if it's a hassle. We have enough POV issues to address without listing "bad" things officially and encouraging a mindset. What makes sense to proceed? -- Banjeboi 11:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really need to see a need to change the name of the page. Anyhow, you'll need consensus (preferably here, but you'll need to link this discussion at highly-watched pages) and then file a request at bugzilla if the other people agree with you. And even then the request might not be fulfilled. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been at Bugzilla for a year. See /Archive_3#MediaWiki:Abused_image_list.3F. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it usually take this long for someone to get around to 'doing something' with it? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual. In terms of priorities it's probably not very high, and it's not entirely clear if there's consensus for the new name. Voting on the bug may speed it up a bit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purely aesthetic changes that have political undertones are usually the type of bugs that can be avoided for years and years, understandably in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please go here to register your opinions. Current consensus is being ascertained if the name should be standardized to whitelist/blacklist. Also is this an actual blacklist. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bug has been now been closed, with some explanation, as WORKSFORME. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this working?

Resolved

– Fix has gone live; bug 19240 has been resolved; the two links below no longer show the images. Brian Jason Drake 07:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Although the image is protected as bad image, through a redirect syntax, it can still be seen on the page. Is it possible to avoid this? ^LeaveSleaves 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another instance [8]. ^LeaveSleaves 12:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested a couple other images in my sandbox (all on the list) and they all worked. Is the list broken? --auburnpilot talk 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have virtually zero understanding of the Mediawiki software, but is it possible that the recent software update may have caused this? ^LeaveSleaves 14:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

09:46 logmsgbot: tstarling synchronized php-1.5/includes/ImageFunctions.php 'disabled bad image list'

I asked in the tech IRC room and it appears developer Tim Starling disabled it for some reason. Beyond that, I don't know why. --auburnpilot talk 14:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bug 19240 filed. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough yet?

So, does Wikipedia have enough pictures of penises yet? — [Unsigned comment added by 78.16.129.64 (talk • contribs).]

Getting there. - Banyan Tree 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:00741.JPG

What's the deal with File:00741.JPG? It's on the list; both the file description and talk pages have {{badimage}} on them; yet the image does not exist, apparently. There is no log entry for this page either. Brian Jason Drake 07:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It used to live at commons, but was deleted there upon author request. Amalthea 09:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the empty page on en.wikipedia was still here, I just deleted it. That page only had the badimage template on it. Garion96 (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Realistic dildo 01.jpg

Please add this image per vandal - ism. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No probs. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting unused images

I've noticed that several of the images on this page are not used at all in any articles. Are there any guidelines about deleting them? Is there any reason why an unused image on this list should not be deleted, when being orphaned is a reason for deleting other images? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most images on this list seem to be on Commons, so (a) being orphaned is not grounds for deletion and (b) any deletion discussion should not take place on Wikipedia. Algebraist 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned images are deleted only if they are also fair use, under WP:CSD#F5. Commons doesn't allow fair use at all. While notionally I would agree with the idea that an unused fair use image on this list should be given deletion priority, in actuality Category:Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files has only a small backlog; these files don't sit around for long once their one-week grace period ends. Images under free license are free to stay around indefinitely unless some other issue is raised. - Banyan Tree 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which images in particular are you (the OP) talking about? If they're free images hosted on enwiki, you might be able to send them to Wikipedia:Files for deletion, if they meet certain criteria for non-usefulness. I have no particular desire to spend the next 15 minutes going through the BIL image by image and looking at penises in various states of health and/or tumescence, diseased body parts, gaping orifices, dead bodies and whatever else is on there - but unused, low-quality pics (in terms of resolution or content) can probably be safely nominated for deletion, *if* there are plenty more (better) images available (here or on Commons) depicting pretty much the same thing. N.B. 'It's gross' is not a valid reason to delete, if there's the potential for the image to be used constructively somewhere on WP. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I think I have a better understanding of what's what now. Kurt, I didn't have any specific images in mind, I just noticed that many were not used. I think some are obsoleted by new versions and some really don't appear to have much likelihood of future encyclopedic use, but I didn't make a list - it was just a general impression I got. I did not look at which were hosted here vs. on commons, so I'll take other editors' word for it that many are on commons. Maybe at some point I'll go through and see which are obsoleted, etc., but it sounds like it's not really that big of a deal and that just because there's no good reason to keep some of them doesn't mean it's necessary to delete them. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chancres on the penile shaft due to a primary syphilitic infection caused by Treponema pallidum 6803 lores.jpg

Can this picture be permitted on the article "Syphilis" please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 10:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RopeMarks at BoundCon 2008.jpg

I tried to edit this list to also allow File:RopeMarks at BoundCon 2008.jpg, a picture that I have taken myself, on also Bondage (sexual), because User:Ewawer saw fit to move Bondage (BDSM) to that name. But the article still doesn't display the picture. Did I do something wrong? JIP | Talk 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A null edit on Bondage (sexual) solved it. Garion96 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png

Apparently it has been used for vandalism and I am sure that it is a likely target in future; not to mention the fact that it is non free-use and is only allowed on here because of fair-use rationale. It should be allowed inclusion on the Goatse.cx article, because it is of encyclopedic use. Jolly Ω Janner 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No worries. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg

The image has recently been used for vandalism here. It should be on the bad image list. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 02:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple to add

I recommend adding File:Cumfac-01.svg and File:Wiki-bukkake-2.png to the list. The first is a vector version of one already on the list, and the second is used in an article which has another similar (unused) bad image in the list. Whilst I've seen no evidence for vandalism with these, is it right to be proactive? 90.197.170.17 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Keep 'em coming ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foreskin CloseupV2.jpg

There's currently a low-quality image in the Penis page which can be replaced with this higher-quality image. Please allow the image to be used in this page. — [Unsigned comment added by Tinkba (talk • contribs).]

Done Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scrotum.jpg

This image was used in this vandalism. It probably should be on the list. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pre-cum 03-05.JPG

Was used here. Another one for the list. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Waxed pudenda.jpg

Another one. Used here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiki-facial.png and File:Wiki-cumshot.png

Legitimately used on Facial (sex act) and Cum shot. The former was used for this vandalism. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done So Why 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MisterWiki 4chan.png

legitimately used in 4chan. --MisterWiki talk contribs 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted File:MisterWiki 4chan.png, which was never on this list in the first place. The next time you feel an urge to upload an image that contains the phrase "vandalize the fucking wikipedia!!!" and put it in a featured article, I recommend that you go for a stroll until the urge passes. - Banyan Tree 16:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Female sexual arousal.JPG

Used in Sexual arousal, Vaginal lubrication, Clitoral erection, Vulva. Used for vandalism here -- Raziman T V (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - cheers. Ale_Jrb^talk 14:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sex intercourse.jpg

Legitimately used at Woman on top (sex position). Used in this vandalism. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --auburnpilot talk 04:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg

This file is an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted Australian Aboriginal flag. --84.61.165.65 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this page is not for reporting copyright issues; I assume this will be handled in the commons discussion, but per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, the file can possibly be here either way. Ale_Jrb^talk 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nekrose dekubitus01.jpg

Another gross-out image, should probably be prevented from appearing on articles it doesn't belong on. 94.194.66.92 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this one. Was it used for vandalism? I can't even tell what part of the body I'm looking at and I had to dig a bit to figure out why I should be grossed out. Good candidates for this page that aren't already the focus of some vandalism tend to provoke an instant "ewwww!" response, not a "what is that?" one. - Banyan Tree 10:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:7-15-07NAP 441.jpg

Even when this picture has not been used for vandalism, this picture is inappropriate and might soon be a vandal target. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at ≈ 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of interest to users here

Proposal to manage commons images which can't go to FFD for a number of reasons Gnevin (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frottage2.jpg

This image was added to a clearly inappropriate article. It's a target for vandalising random articles. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Banyan Tree 05:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, never does this before. This image needs to be allowed on Frot. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I think I was looking at usage on other languages and completely missed the usage on en.wiki. Thanks, Banyan Tree 14:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New name for template & Interface page

The {{Bad image}} template has been moved to {{Restricted use}}. So I would like to propose that this MediaWiki page be moved to "MediaWiki:Restricted-use image list". Please respond with your opinion. Thank you very much!
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page cannot be moved. See the page-move discussion above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've reopened the discussion.

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 20:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or is this taking way too long to get noticed? Help me, please, editor zzuuzz... Why does it take a bug report to move a page, and why does the opinion of one person (Tim Starling) seem to hold eminent sway in a report where several people see the need for a name change?

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 07:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it takes a bug report to move this page is that moving it will require changes to the MediaWiki code that require a developer to make. This is exactly the same as would be required to move many pages in the MediaWiki namespace. The developers evidently do not see this as a high priority among the literally thousands of open bug reports. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thryduulf! That answers one of my questions. Also, I note that there is a move link on this Talk page, and of course, no move link on the Interface page. I clicked on it just to see if there was an error msg. but no, I was taken to the usual move page. Makes me wonder what would happen if someone actually tried to move this Talk page.

— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is more conversation on this issue here, in case you're interested in adding your comment.
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 05:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to blacklist

File:Blowjob.svg and File:Blowjob.jpg seem to be vandalism targets lately. Not seeing any use on relevant articles on en. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for addition

Could these images please be added? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any examples of these images being used in vandalism? Fran Rogers ❇ 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reported these images because the likelihood of these images being used for vandalism is very high, especially the fellatio and anus one. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's thousands upon thousands of such images on Commons. The bad image list is only for images known to be an ongoing problem; otherwise it'd be unmanageably long.

Declined. Fran Rogers ❇ 03:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you just wanted to look at naughty pictures. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's no need to make a list! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did somebody ask for a list? Killiondude (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of people use Wikipedia to search inappropriate topics. To MZMcBride, I did not look at naughty images just for the heck of it. I was doing serious business here. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 05:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muy serious! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hadako-tan.png

This image has been used in vandalism on Kama Chinen's page (she is currently the oldest person alive). See [9]. Brendanology^ContriB 10:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]