MediaWiki talk:Bad image list/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Usage of Gabe_Newell_GDC_2010.jpg

Could we have an exception to use Gabe_Newell_GDC_2010.jpg on no:Gabe Newell? Working on improving all of the Valve related articles on the norwegian Wiki Thor erik ^{(talk|contrib)} 01:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the bad image list only works on this project and doesn't affect other wikis. Nakon 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Image added to page - not blocked there. Skier Dude (talk 03:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Article split.

Due to splitting. The image File:Labelled flaccid penis.jpg has been moved to Human Penis. It should be now be allowed there. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Wiki-pegging.png

Hello. Could an admin please approve this image for use in the Anal sex article? Thanks very much.--TyrS (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The same request for Doggy style. Ewawer (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fellatio gay.jpg

Hello. Could an admin please approve the use of a small version of this image at Fellatio. Thanks very much.--TyrS (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Female buttock.jpg

This probably should be added in (NSFW!). Vandals have transcluded it onto my user pages in the past, and I have seen it also used as the "unblock reason" in the unblock template. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is one diff [1]. I cannot find the diff for the one used in the unblock template right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad > Shock?

Suggesting a renaming from "Bad image list" to "Shock image list", The images are not bad. Many are educational, some are less then attractive. All have a stronger then normal potential to be abused by vandals for their shock value. Jeepday (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Renaming this page requires a developer as it would require changes in the code. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14281 for an open request that has garnered very little attention. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Any of the suggested renames there would be appropriate. Withdrawing my name suggestion and supporting community consensus for anything that does not include "Bad". Jeepday (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference what we call this page as long as its desired effect (to prevent the images being sed for vandalism) is achieved, which it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur, like it says on the bugzilla page, the current name is poor from a WP:NPOV perspective. From a technical perspective it does not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs) at 22:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why this isn't named MediaWiki:Image blacklist, similar to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Wouldn't that be better? Cheers, theFace 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the title predates those pages, but I don't know that for certain. Also, this isn't a blacklist in the sense used by those pages as it doesn't prevent the use of the images. It merely restricts the use of the images on it to explicitly listed pages. So I don't think "MediaWiki:Image blacklist would be a good title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "Image greylist" (by analogy with Greylisting) would be a reasonable alternative. Feezo (Talk) 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Addendum — it could also be called "Restricted images", since that's what the category is called. Feezo (Talk) 10:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good ideas, Feezo! How about renaming this to MediaWiki:Restricted files, and renaming Category:Restricted images to Category:Restricted files? See also Template talk:Restricted use. Cheers, theFace 15:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Urinate.jpg

{{editprotected}} This file was deleted last week because the uploader failed to prove where it came from. It was added to Urination on 25 October 2006 by the uploader, and removed from it on 2 December 2006. It never seems to have been put on commons. Cheers, theFace 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Creampie drawing 1.svg

Please add this, with an exception for Creampie (sexual act) (warning: NSFW). Thanks. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg

This image appears to blocked from the article that describes it since the page was moved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Exception added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be working just yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could be the database lag. Give it an hour or two and maybe try a dummy edit to the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Move request

{{editprotected}} Following discussion, I would like to propose, {{movenotice|MediaWiki:Restricted files}}, that this page be moved to MediaWiki:Restricted files. I think this is the most logical title, since it includes video content as well as images. Feezo (Talk) 04:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• meh. I don't think that the upheaval required to move the page is worth it. It needs a developer to make changes to the MediaWiki code to implement it, so that the functionality is not lost (including during the time between the change being implemented and all the caches updating. Depending how hardcoded the current name is (I have no idea) this could be as simple as changing one line of code, or in the worst case scenario possibly hundreds of lines of code. Also the likelihood of a developer actually making the effort to make the change is low, given how long more significant bugs have been outstanding is very low. While I don't object to the new name, I just don't think changing it will happen tbh. I'm not going to put the move notice on the interface page as I don't know if it will break anything (And I don't particularly want to find out!). Thryduulf (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. It seems unlikely that just using a template would break the page — looking at the history, it seems the header text has been modified a number of times — I don't think it has to be in a strict format. You're right, though, a developer would need to modify the Bad Image List extension, and since it's a fairly trivial issue I will withdraw the edit request for now. Feezo (Talk) 05:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Once again, I will voice my support of a page move. As noted at Bugzilla, ID#14281, the most correct name would probably be MediaWiki:Restricted-use media list, since there may be more than just image files involved. In looking through all the discussions/arguments about this issue, there does appear to be a consensus against the present name. From the viewpoint of the developers, the problem is that there is no evident consensus for any certain new name for the list. As they've noted, there have been several suggestions, so no one particular name has risen to the "height" of consensus.

Also, again as noted at Bug #14281...

As a note, the name is used on all mediawiki installs, it is not something that is going to be made a config option, so consensus at wikipedia (on the off chance you actually get it) does not necessarily imply it will be changed.

— Bawolff 2011-02-13 05:49:20 UTC – Comment 21

I have been fighting this battle for nearly a year, and there are others who've been fighting it even longer. It is hard for me to conceive why such a change as this should be so very difficult to implement. The challenges include, but not in any specific order nor necessarily limited to:

1. Coming to consensus on one particular name,
2. Convincing the "powers that be" that enough of us care about the need for a name change,
3. Defining the actual amount of work from the developer's POV (If it involves changing one line of code and 30 seconds of time, then what's the holdup? On the other hand, if this change will involve subtle and intricate code modifications that will take an hour or more to implement, then that is a significant consideration when prioritizing this change. Nobody seems to know the answer to this.), and
4. Securing a target date for completion.

I did sense early last year when I became involved with this issue that it would be an uphill climb. I never realized that it would be like fitting a spaceship to go to the star Sirius.  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• PS. Thank heavens I take Lisinopril!>)

In regards to how much work it would be to change. Changing the name involves changing one line of includes/ImageFunctions.php (2 if you count a comment), ~2 lines in some of the i18n maintenance scripts, and a bunch of lines in the i18n files (which is trivial with a script). The amount of work is insignificant. It really is a Bikeshed issue. It would cause a minor amount of disruption though since mediawiki:Bad image list would stop working in favour of the new name [On all mediawiki installs, not just enwikipedia, not even just wikimedia wikis]. The reason you're probably not getting very much response to this is that the reasons presented (that the current name is politically incorrect) aren't very convincing. A very mildly politically incorrect message name (which is only politically incorrect on a subset of sites using mediawiki), that is not advertised to normal readers, is really not something to get worked up about. Heck arguing that it should be changed to be consistent with the convention of using dashes instead of spaces in message names would probably be slightly more convincing (although not much more). [Just to clarify, the preceding is just my personal opinion. Others who commented on the bug might have different opinions on the issue]. Bawolff (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you, Bawolff, for resolving #3 above. Also, I hope you don't mind that I quoted you above. You raised an argument that I have not read in any of the discussions, archived or active, on this issue, and I felt that it needed to be heard. I respect your feeling that this issue is trivial. When I look into the archives, when I check the date that craleigh318 opened the bug (2008-05-27), when I count the growing number of editors who have given an opinion on this matter, I am compelled to disagree. I guess I did read a discussion or two about the name being "politically incorrect", but few have really cared about that. The main concern over the last three years does not seem to me to be that the "bad" is politically incorrect, but that it is incorrect, period. These media are no more "bad" than, say, a nail gun is bad because some vandal puts somebody's eye out with it. (Nor are these media "blacklisted", but their usage is only "restricted".) You indicate that in your eyes there is not very much response to this issue. You will want to look again to the archives and note that response to this issue over the last three years has been quite strong. No, there has never been consensus as to a new name; there has however been a strong consensus against the present name, as well as the prevailing thought that just about any other name (that does not include the word "blacklist" in any way, shape or form) would be a definite improvement over the present name. At 14281, you wrote that you "certainly don't" care what this page is called. Over the past three years, I and many other editors have shown that we do care, that we would like to see this page renamed using a correct descriptor. Nearly a year ago, if I could have, I would have renamed this page. And there are some editors who would have renamed this page three years ago if they could have. I can't help but wonder how many different editors over what period of time does it take to raise this from trivial to necessary?  —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Since when does Wikipedia pass such ridiculous value judgments on official pages? IMO, pages should be titled with their purpose, a criteria which "restricted files" achieves. I'm pretty sure there'd be a big furor if I made a Category:Bad Books and added Flowers for Algernon to it. Let's push for this. Attract more attention, reach consensus and petition for a name change. DubiousIrony ^yell 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Fluorideactionnetwork-logo.png

This File:Fluorideactionnetwork-logo.png is on the list, but I see nothing wrong with it. It was added here. Ariel. (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing the context, I can only guess that it was added to the list to enforce the non-free content policy. You would need to ask MuZemike if you wanted an explanation or removal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This image was being rapidly spammed all over the place by a vandal on open proxies, part of a pattern of other vandalism. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Prince Albert piercing.jpg and File:Prince Albert Piercing.jpg

The Prince Albert Piercing page was moved to Prince Albert (genital piercing). Since the exceptions here were not updated, the images are not showing up on the appropriate page anymore. Could a moderator modify the exception list to refer to the new page? Qvdm (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Scary clown.jpg

The image File:Scary clown.jpg is offensive and causes anxiety to suffers of coulrophobia, and as such, should be removed from the article discussing the said phobia, as I myself am I sufferer of coulrophobia, I had to cover the image with my hand to read the article, so I would like for this offensive image to be removed from the article, thank you. The offensiveness of this image has been discussed in the said article's talk page, but to no avail... Greg The Webmaster (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right venue. If you want the picture gone from the article, get consensus at Talk:Coulrophobia. --Conti|✉ 14:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Overreach

It was my understanding that the bad image list was intended for offensive images that could cause trouble if used for vandalism, at least according to Tim Starling's comments introducing the feature. But over the past several months, it looks like images have been put on the list that don't seem offensive by any stretch of the imagination:

• File:Ainsley Harriott.jpg
• File:Gabe Newell GDC 2010.jpg
• File:Reginald Fils-Aime.jpg
• File:The Mystery of the Druids Coverart.jpg

I don't understand the reasoning here. If the intention is to stop copycat vandals adding the same image everywhere, the edit filter is that way. Remember the bad image list doesn't stop edits from getting through; it only stops the images themselves from being rendered inline. The average reader is going to be just as confused whether they see a grinning TV chef or the linked text "File:Ainsley Harriott.jpg" in some random article, and it's going to bamboozle the good-faith contributor trying to add the picture to a relevant article months later (the "Gabe Newell GDC 2010" one was added months ago). These images should be removed, and the above kept in mind. Fran Rogers (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's the policy that says it's only for offensive images? It's used to prevent the use of images on the list for vandalism. I don't know how an edit filter could be concocted to have the same effect, but I certainly couldn't write one from scratch in less time than it takes me to type the name of the file and save this page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The bad image list does nothing to prevent vandalism. As I mentioned above, all it does is prevent selected images from rendering inline and replace them with a link, thus mitigating the specific problem of potentially offensive/shocking images popping up in front of visitors before they can be reverted. If ongoing, repeated vandalism with an image is going on and the image is added to this list, the edits adding these images are still going to get through and stick around until somebody finds them. This is why adding anything other than offensive images here basically accomplishes nothing. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Circumcised_penis_labelled.jpg

• File:Circumcised_penis_labelled.jpg except on Human penis. A vandal (86.134.22.163) put this in ten different templates transcluded on 746 pages (counting repeats, if any). The consequence for the vandal? A 72-hour block. That's less than 6 minutes per article. Tomorrow at 17:16, the vandal will be back at it. 68.9.94.136 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   Done Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please change the filename to File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg. I suspect that the '_' characters are causing SoxBot to edit war with itself. Besides, the rest of the link text has spaces instead of low lines. 68.9.94.136 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Trollface.png

Could File:Trollface.png be added to the blacklist? It is commonly used in 4chan attacks when they target video games. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bukkake images

• File:Wikibukkake.png (NSFW)
  • The exception is incorrect; Bukkake is a disambiguation page. Bukkake (sex act) is the correct article.
• File:Wikibukkake new.png (also NSFW)
  • Could someone please add this, with an exception for Bukkake (sex act)? Thanks!

--Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 22:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Wiki-analoral.png (NSFW)

Can someone please add this to the blacklist, with exceptions for Anal sex, Anilingus, Lesbian sexual practices, Sex positions, and Talk:Sex positions/Archive 1? Thanks, Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, is it being used for vandalism? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and on top of that, it's common practice to add sexually explicit images to the blacklist. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Autofellatio6.jpg except on Autofellatio and Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 9

Used to vandalize Template:Islam and The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings. It's also currently on some user pages but I'm not sure it's appropriate there. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I'd rather not have it break on pages where it's already legitimately used (without warning anyway), so I've added it to the list with four exceptions for now. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why are we allowing it to be used on userpages? It's either a restricted image or it isn't. Risker (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? The restricted image system allows exceptions for specific pages. All I did was allow the image to continue being used on userpages that already used it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually looking at the pages in question now, it seems that User:Atomaton/scratch is someone's summary of teh dramaz at Autofellatio and is arguably appropriate or at least worthy of discussion, while User:Pokem0n0mekop is the userpage of an inactive vandalism-only account and should be probably be deleted (and that one exception removed). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Masturbation.gif

Used for vandalism here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Anatomically Complete Circumcision 2.JPG

File:Anatomically Complete Circumcision 2.JPG was used as vandalism here. File:-pls02039.JPG was used as vandalism here. File:Testicular and scrotal masturbation.JPG was used as vandalism here. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done The Helpful One 20:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Moot smiling at ROFLCon II.jpg

Ridiculously high chance for being used for vandalism, and it was used for vandalism sometime a while ago. --Σ _☭^★ 23:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has so far been ignored; anyone know if it's actually been used for vandalism? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I seem to remember it being used on WP:Griefing during a 4chan raid. I seem to be mistaken. --Σ ^talk_contribs 06:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Old discussion that may not have been acknowledged

File:Hadako-tan.png

This image has been used in vandalism on Kama Chinen's page (she is currently the oldest person alive). See [2]. Brendanology^ContriB 10:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it was long ago (26 August 2010), another vandalism using this image (two actually on one page) appears to have been used below a copy/paste of "Where did you learn to fly?" all over the page.

I can't tell if there have been other vandalism attempts using this image, but it should probably be restricted to the page Hentai, the only article where the image is found according to Special:WhatLinksHere. mechamind90 03:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Courcelles 04:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Cul.jpg

Used for vandalism on {{Page needed}} --Σ _☭^★ 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Done. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Male torso undressed.jpg

You should add this image to the list because it was already vulnerable, and then, suddenly, ta da! It is used on a couple of talk page archives, Talk:Breast/Archive 4 and Talk:Breast/Archive 5, so those should be the only pages this is allowed on. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 03:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, without exception. The image is used in the archives as part of a gallery and thus can be left as is. Risker (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I added three

I've not edited the page before, but I think I did it right. If not, please let me know. 28bytes (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. I've alphabetized it, just for cosmetic reasons. Thanks for the addition, and a belated congrats on your admin bit! Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Description

Would it be a wise thing to do to edit this page's description (above) to include that the vast majority of these pics are pornography?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It should be evident enough from the names. If it's not, you can always submit a file move request. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nazi Swastika.svg File:Nazi swastika clean.svg File:Nationalsocialistisk front.svg File:Swastika nazi.svg File:Anarcho-swastika.svg

One or more of these were probably used for vandalism here, although because I can't see the deleted content, I am not sure, but in any case it would be very wise to preëmtively add these because they're very likely to be used for image-vandalism. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 01:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, File:Nazi Swastika.svg is used on a bunch of pages. —GFOLEY FOUR— 05:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: by MuZemike; File:Nazi Swastika.svg has been added, but not the others. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, or whether it was done in response to this. If there's a consensus for it, the others can be easily added. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the rest. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Foxie color.jpg

This file should not be restricted for Furry fandom as it is an example of sexual artwork within the fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is likely to be controversial, so it would be good to seek consensus first at Talk:Furry fandom or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Furry. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-male.jpg on w:Herpes genitalis

Article w:Herpes genitalis has image of female herpes, but not of male herpes file:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-male.jpg.--RicHard-59 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Dead_rat_blood.JPG

Some guy seems to have stepped on a rat just to put it on Commons. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Human semen in petri dish2.jpg

Special:Contributions/96.244.254.20 should suffice. --Σ ^talk_contribs 04:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Male pubic hair caucsn.jpg

Hello. Could an admin please approve the use of this image on pubic hair. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.254.30 (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Already done Skier Dude (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/96.244.254.20

Enough said. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It would help if you could come up with a list of the images which the IP used to vandalize, and (if not too much effort) the diffs as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This should suffice. --Σ ^talk_contribs 05:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Lynching2.jpg

• File:Lynching2.jpg, an image of a lynching victim, was used by a blocked user for harassment by posting it on another editor's talk page with the caption "(targeted user) the Moslem ngger hanging from his rightful place" and the personal message "I'll show you vandalism, you f**ing ngger." You can see the diff here. Given the relative ease that such an image can be posted on user talk pages in such fashion, perhaps this image should be added to the restricted image list? However, there are a number of legitimate articles linking to the image so I hope that's not too much trouble to build an "exception" list for. Here are the twelve (12) pages that currently link legitimately to the image: Leonidas C. Dyer, Lynching, User:Durova/Featured picture gallery/2009, User talk:Durova/Archive 72, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/July-2009, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lynching, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History, Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 19, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Quality content, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Recognized content, Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 24, Portal:United States/Selected picture Thank you for considering this request. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I will put the corresponding template on the image's talk page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wiki-sixtynine.png

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Benlisquare&diff=442571926&oldid=441995635 --Σ ^talk_contribs 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:TrollFace.svg and File:75378-TrollFace.png

Copies of File:Trollface.png, which is on the bad image list already. --Σ ^talk_contribs 16:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide evidence of abuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added the original to the list on the suggestion of Reaper Eternal. If its inclusion is justified, then images that are essentially identical should be included as well. Interested parties may want to ask Reaper for examples of abuse—on the other hand, it doesn't take much imagination to imagine it happening. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 16:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, but if those who might abuse them haven't (yet) discovered these versions, and there are potential valid uses then I would be inclined against prohibiting their use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

They are commonly used by /v/ for replacing the infobox image (usually fair-use coverart) in various video games. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added them—congrats on becoming an administrator, by the way! Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Trollface.jpg

A few minutes ago I was wondering if I should ask for trollface alternatives to be listed here, and like magic, it gets used on a blatant vandalism/attack page, "Zane conroy needs a bath". --Σ ^talk_contribs 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a borderline case (looks like it's mostly just an unfortunate title), but I went ahead and added it. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg

Has been used for vandalism, the use on Hentai is the only place it is being used legitimately. Monty₈₄₅ 04:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Frenulum of prepuce of penis.jpg

Recently used in vandalism on Template:IUCN (diff). See WP:ANI#Dodo for more discussion. Goodvac (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Bedtime.jpg

Today I tried to use the image on my userpage, but had to see that it's blocked by software. So I ask here for permission; especially I cannot see the basically difference beetween the two images I tried to embed. [3] Thanks, --Blogotron (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It was added without a comment two years ago, so I don't know why it has been added. You might want to ask DF76 to delist it or explain why he added it. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Blogotron (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the image had inappropriately been added to various pages. The reason that the second image did not get blacklisted, even though its content is similar, is that there are a great many images and we-the-administrators are very busy. DS (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

All right. Things now seem to be more clear to me.--Blogotron (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Masturbating with a vibrator.jpg

This should suffice. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 05:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg

I would like to request permission to use File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg at WP:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates for a nomination. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, but you'll probably need an exception for the nomination subpage as well. Feel free to come back when you've got it set up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I need another exception. Nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hentai yuuree. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Coital Play.png

Used today by a vandal on Film noir and User:The Dark Peria. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we make an exception for the userbox? -- œ^™ 02:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Listed, with the exception. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad image script not working

Not sure if this is the place to put this (if not, feel free to revert this), but the script to hide images at User:Mr.Z-man/badimages does not seem to do anything currently. Thoughts? Calabe1992 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible wrong image

Hi, could someone look into this image, please? I reckon it WAY wrong, especially since it's linked with the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. In my opinion, it's just as easy as to put a 'Wanted' sign on someones forehead. See: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Igor_Sayenko.jpg 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 02:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• This file does not appear to be on the Bad Image List. What are your concerns? (This page only handles images used for vandalism, not media copyright, or media suitability questions for specific pages, the Bad Image List is intended exclusively as an anti-vandalism tool.) Courcelles 02:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The person on the photo is rather recognisable. The point of blurring is to make someones identity anonymous (especially in a high profile-case). Obviously, this photo could use some work (to say the least). My concern is about the person depicted on the photograph. I don't know him, but obviously, this can't pass wiki's guidelines. 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 02:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I reckon I'm on the wrong page here (like you said; this page only deals with images used for vandalism). Could you perhaps show me the correct wiki page to go to? It would be greatly appreciated! 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The right forums would be at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk maniacs or WP:BLPN. Courcelles 02:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a million; I've posted the concern @ WP:BLPN. Again, many thanks for helping out!「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 02:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No one helped, so I decided to let it go (can't do anything about it). Anyhow, thank you so much Courcelles for helping out, it really is very much appreciated!! :) 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 17:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to add File:The Mystery of the Druids Coverart.jpg

I'm proposing to add File:The Mystery of the Druids Coverart.jpg. There was a filter to try and prevent images like this from being spammed on to pages. But it was disabled since this would be a better solution. The source of the vandalism is from you know where and it's been going on for months now. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Backtowel2.jpg

Used for vandalism here. Calabe1992 (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is currently used in a userbox. I'd be inclined not to add it while it's there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Male human buttocks.jpg

{{sudo}} This file is approved for use on Buttocks, but there's a discussion about whether to replace it, so could it please be approved for Talk:Buttocks as well, so the side-by-side comparison between the images can be seen? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Added the {{sudo}} tag for you. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:The Mystery of the Druids Coverart.jpg

File:The Mystery of the Druids Coverart.jpg is a popular image to use when vandalizing articles, suggest adding it to the bad image list. Only legit use is at The Mystery of the Druids. Monty₈₄₅ 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

File:220px-Cumfart 02.png

{{edit protected}} Image has been deleted, so it can be removed here. Reach Out to the Truth 17:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding the edit request template. Note that though the image may appear to still exist, that's just a bot recreating the page to add the bad image template. Reach Out to the Truth 01:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

off again - lets see what happens :)Skier Dude (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Media:Trollface.svg

Previously added before, but later deleted with the entry removed. →Στc. 03:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Thryduulf (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Urine.jpg

A blocked user improperly used this image on their talk page here. Way more than what I wanted to see when I checked a diff. Calabe1992 00:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add them to the blacklist to prevent vandalism. I have found some more to add them here.

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Kindly regards --Katarighe (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Vagina.jpg

File:Vagina.jpg was recently used for vandalism in a couple of articles. NB: there's an ongoing discussion on Commons over whether to just delete it. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ola eblawi.jpg

File:Ola eblawi.jpg is a new image, probably of very limited use, and potentially abusable. part of a series of images, the rest seem to be not particularly subject to abuse, and probably of some importance, none of which were categorized.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Fisting close-up.jpg

I would like to request an exception for this file that allows it to be used on Fisting. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot maintenance

It's been suggested that a bot regularly check this page to keep the list in alphabetical order. Additionally, I could have it automatically remove deleted images. Please let me know how you feel about these two proposals, and if there's support I'll go ahead with them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea running weekly? Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably, although it would likely not actually make an edit that often, as most of the time it will not need to do anything. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Cats having sex in Israel.jpg

Thinking this one perhaps should be restricted except on the pages currently linking to it. It was used to vandalize Jimbo's page a short time back and likely will be used elsewhere similarly. Calabe1992 04:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Anal Fisting.jpg

Used for vandalism diff. Add an exception for where it is currently used if you feel like it should be used at all. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done by MaxSem -  7  00:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Dydoe.jpg

Can this file please be activated for use in the article genital piercing. Thanks, --Lamilli (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ampallang cropped.jpg

Can this file please be activated for use in the article genital piercing. Thanks, --Lamilli (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Scrotum piercing.jpg

Can this file please be activated for use in the article genital piercing. Thanks, --Lamilli (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Pierced.JPG

Can this file please be activated for use in the article genital piercing. Thanks, --Lamilli (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Suitcase piercing.jpg

Can this file please be activated for use in the article genital piercing. Thanks, --Lamilli (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Kitbag.jpg

Except on Kitbag. May be used for spamming, was used on Nick Jr. --180.183.131.81 (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the IP doesn't understand the point of this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No need for an exception for this Skier Dude (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Christinas.jpg

Can this file please be activated for use in the article genital piercing. Thanks, --Lamilli (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Wiki-oral-scrotum.png

This image was disallowed (without exception) by User:Reaper Eternal despite the fact that it was in use on Tea bag (sexual act) article. The rationale given was very professional "ooh, more "educational art"". Please allow this image to be used in the intended article. Thank you. --SeedFeeder (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Exception made, image now displays in the article. — ξ^xplicit 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Pedobear.png

Is File:Pedobear.png really a bad image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It was obviously being used for vandalism, which is the point of this page. See images like File:Trollface.jpg, File:The Mystery of the Druids Coverart.jpg, etc. They're not offensive, but are likely to be used to vandalize. That's why they're listed here. Calabe1992 15:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I just noticed how my bot recently tagged it with {{badimage}}.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Backtowel2.jpg

Could something please be done with this image. Although it's being used in a userbox, it's still being abused. 174.101.33.62 (talk · contribs) was the latest perpetrator. Perhaps a restriction other than where it's currently used? Calabe1992 02:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've nominated the userbox for deletion. We'll see what that generates. Calabe1992 02:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The public userbox that contains the image has now been deleted. Therefore, could the file be restricted except for Buttocks, User:Jenova20, User:Balloholic, and User:Wee Curry Monster. Calabe1992 22:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Images on the list have normally been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical."
  This image doesn't have shock value either. I would rather remove it. Amalthea 09:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

N The request to edit this protected page is declined because the requested change may not be uncontroversial and there is not (yet) a consensus among editors to make the change. Please make any further {{editprotected}} requests only after a discussion among editors has shown that the change is uncontroversial or that there is consensus to make the change. For further information, please refer to Wikipedia:Protection policy.  Sandstein  17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Pedobear.png

Can this be used on the 4chan article? 4chan popularized it, and it would fit nicely in the 4chan#Pedobear section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Trollface.svg

I would like to use that image to illustrate the section about trollfaces in the article about memes (in the French Wikipedia). Here's the link. Can that be allowed? WanisD (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Breast vandal

A vandal went around to user talk pages and added photos of breasts, such as here. Is it possible these images could be added to the list with exceptions for the breast pages linking to them? Thanks. Calabe1992 00:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikibukkake new.png

This code, [[Image:Wikibukkake new.png|thumb|right|A bukkake scene]], appears at the head of the Bukkake article but the image is not displayed, neither in in Firefox nor Internet Explorer. Can anyone explain why, and explain how to fix the problem? The image has been removed and restored in edit wars in the past, and the article is protected at the moment. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

When the article was moved from Bukkake (sex act) to Bukkake, the link here was not updated to reflect that. I have done so, and the image appears once again. — ξ^xplicit 04:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. I haven't worked with these types of images in Wikipedia. Thanks for the fix. — O'Dea (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions for personal userpages

Are there any rules regarding adding exceptions to the list for personal use? There's currently 22 links to the user namespace in this list, and I'm doubtful that this is how the list is supposed to be used. If a user requests to have his user page added as an exception for an image in the list, what do we do? Do we grant it because of WP:NOTCENSORED, or do we deny it because adding such an image to your user page obviously has no practical use whatsoever? I've removed one entry already (a vandal's user page. How did that even get an exception in the first place?), but I'm curious about the others (which includes administrators). --Conti|✉ 23:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

i would like to point out that it is not my intent to remove the image from anyone else's userpage, i only wish to be afforded the same courtesy as Ryan. please note that nudity is not excluded on user pages:

Those created by known and respected long-standing contributors, whose aim is clearly more to showcase our work and WP:NOT#CENSORED and that are not designed for self-amusement or for sexual provocation may be kept but even so have at times been MFD'ed multiple times or closed as "no consensus".

i have been registered since January, 2008, and my userpage, which contained this image, ended up deleted. i feel that as a long standing editor, its presence there was just fine all along, given the context. -badmachine 00:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A related discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policy on penises. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Addition / amendment needed to Blacklist

The file File:Babypamper.jpg is a redirect, and it's currently on the blacklist, whereas the image it redirects to, File:Diaper Contents after user.jpg is not. I tagged the second file yesterday evening with a {{badimage}} tag, and Cyberbot promptly came past a few hours later and removed the tag, citing the fact it wasn't on the blacklist. Could the entry for Babypamper.jpg be removed please, and replaced with the actual destination image, so that the correct entry is present in the list? Thanks.  BarkingFish  23:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 Added Anomie⚔ 23:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that Anomie - any chance you could take the redirect off the list please, since it really is just a redirect, and serves no purpose being on the blacklist? Thanks!  BarkingFish  00:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Wiki-fellatio02.png

Used, repeatedly I think, in vandalism at Anita Sarkeesian. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Devoirs de vacances.ogv

This file is listed twice but I suppose it only needs to be listed once. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Anomie⚔ 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Bad"?

The name of this list is really horrible and inappropriate. There is nothing whatsoever "bad" about many of the images -- the list includes images that are technically and artistically well photographs by contributors to Commons. There are original artworks of good quality, rare historic photographs, etc. It seems quite insulting to call them "bad images". I suggest this be renamed to something like "Restricted image list". -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla:14281. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The better term would be "restricted-use images". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs's suggestion.--TyrS 00:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Per earlier discussion linked above, the current name has been considered objectionable for some time, but no one has yet bothered to do something about it. Is there any opposition to renaming?-- Infrogmation (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This requires a change in the MediaWiki software itself, we can't do anything here besides come up with a better name (keeping in mind that the chosen name must be reasonable for all users of MediaWiki, not just enwiki) and then comment about it at bugzilla:14281, and hope one of the devs decides to take care of it.

Personally, something along the lines of "Restricted-use media list" seems most descriptive to me. Anomie⚔ 17:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a note to the infobox that the name is an artifact of software restrictions. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So basically we're stuck with it unless someone does some programming. That's unfortunte. "Bad" images as a term is blatantly contradictory to the NPOV rule. It's almost like a joke from an elementary school kid. I would argue that this[4] is a thoroughly "bad" image, in that the average paparazzi could do better. It makes Carmen look like the Wicked Witch of the West. But it's G-rated, and it "graced" the article for some number of months. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Wiki-pegging.png in "Doggy style" article

Requesting permission for the above to appear in the "Doggy style" article. -- TyrS  chatties  02:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Feezo! I wonder if it might also be appropriate to allow that image at Lordosis_behavior? -- TyrS  chatties  03:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Added. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add

File:Wiki-analoral.svg

File:Wiki-dstyle.png

File:Wiki-cowgirl.png

File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png

File:Fellatio_-_wikipedia.jpg

Thank you --TyrS 00:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(Actually, is it possible to just add everything you think appropriate from here that isn't already listed? If not, no worries, I'll request them individually.)--TyrS 00:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that these are being used for vandalism? Worried that this blanket request smacks of censorism Skier Dude (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the list. I thought it was to prevent images showing up on people's computers if they've chosen the 'block bad images' filter thingie. Maybe I was wrong?--TyrS 09:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken, or else this "'block bad images' filter thingie" (link?) is mischaracterizing this list. The purpose of this list is to limit the use of certain images that have been used for vandalism, personal attacks, or the like, where blocking of the offending users is ineffective. Anomie⚔ 18:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I guess I was mistaken about that. :) --TyrS 19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Tor Johnson

I've put File:PlanNine 10.jpg on this list, as it was being used for vandalism. Hopefully it can be taken off the list in a week or two. -- The Anome (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Once I saw it, I had a mind to use it somewhere on my user page. Is it literally impossible to post it on my own page if I want to? Or are these exclusions based on the honor system? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Listed images won't display on pages not specified as exceptions. There's currently no consensus on when to grant userpage exceptions. I think it would be fine for this particular image, however, so I'll add an exception if you want one. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that's OK, I'll just wait for the restriction to expire. I don't want to make a big thing out of it. I just wondered how the process worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no automatic expiry -- I suggest you wait a week or so, and then put in a request for its removal from this list. It can always be re-listed again if necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist request

The following images have been used for vandalism or otherwise innapropriate purposes by 46.226.185.239 (talk):

With this edit to Queen Elizabeth II High School:

• File:Landing Strip.jpg

With this revision to User talk:46.226.185.239:

• File:Naked.jpg
• File:Nudity.jpg
• File:Landing Strip.jpg
• File:Wet T-Shirt.jpg
• File:Genitals.jpg
• File:Pubes.jpg
• File:Thong.jpg
• File:Boobies.jpg
• File:Ass.jpg

Can/should these be blacklisted? benzband (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done for File:Landing Strip.jpg. As for the others, the list is intended for specifically high risk images — we don't want to automatically list every "nudie pic" an editor manages to find, even if they're being used inappropriately. Thanks for the report! Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Cheers, benzband (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal request

Can File:BDSM Preparation.png be removed? It is a file page with no file, consisting only of {{Restricted use}}. The page was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G8, but then User:Cyberbot I recreated it. Once it is removed from the list, the bot won't start the page again (or so the operator says). David¹²¹⁷ 14:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Done And Cyberbot I should probably be fixed to not create such pages. Anomie⚔ 16:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're a BAG member, so perhaps you can coordinate with Cyberpower678 to code the bot. David¹²¹⁷ 16:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I could do that, but that task is not really high on my priority list. I've got to focus on my college work now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal Requests

The following images were never used for any serious vandalism but are needlessly listed. I looked in the archives and could not find any evidence that there would be some kind of massive abuse. Some of them aren't even mentioned in the archives or the revision history edit summaries.

• File:Futanari.png
• File:Hadako-tan.png
• File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg
• File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw-no-halo.jpg

--／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 11:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Abbot Bitt at Convent in convent pornography

Requesting permission for the file Mr. Abbot Bitt at Convent.ogv to appear in the convent pornography article. Nite-Sirk (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

One more for the list

File:Penis asiatischer Elefant.JPG, recently used for vandalism here: [5] A picture of an elephant penis should probably be restricted to articles about elephants and penises. Robofish (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Was it a single case, or got the image repeatedly used for vandalism without being able to block the vandal? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

19th Century Pornography

Would pornographic pictures like this one, made by Édouard-Henri Avril, qualify for the bad image list or even removal? If so, they should be. Here is an example. [[6]] Led8000 (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the introduction to this list. It is meant to prevent vandalism in serious cases in which blocking the vandal(s) alone is not a viable option. If this picture wasn't used for vandalism, then this is not the right place. Additionally Wikipedia is not censored. This means that we will keep and use such images inside corresponding articles, as long there isn't an alternative of equal value for the topic. At the same time we host such images on Commons, which serves as a general image repository that requires a image to be freely licensed and to be usable in educational context. This image is free and has high historic educational value. A deletion request would not have a chance, except the admin would be drunk. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 01:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: This picture isn't pornographic in nature. Pornography, as defined by Merriam Webster, is the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Exception

Can we make an exception so that File:Ed logo.png is usable in the userbox {{User-ED}}?—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 01:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not possible without removing it from the list entirely. Anomie⚔ 17:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Trollface on the list

Why?? Why trollface among dicks, vaginas, illnesses and pervertion??

Been used on a lot of userpages and articles where it is not supposed to be. So, to prevent reverting countless pages with the addition of this image, just prevent it from being used (with some exceptions). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Version 2

File:Erection Development V2.jpg: The original version is on the list already. Found it was used [7] awhile back, and more recently [8]. Amp71 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Human Sexuality page is using File:Penis with Labels.jpg

The Human Sexuality page is using File:Penis with Labels.jpg in the "Male anatomy and reproductive system" section and now the image cannot be displayed because it's limited to only be used in human penis page. Can anyone please fix this? Moscowsky^-talk- 23:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the image still cannot be showed in Human Sexuality page, could you please check further? It is in the following section, the first line under the title: click this link Moscowsky^-talk- 11:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because of a mistaken capital letter. I fixed it and am able to see the picture now in the article. Garion96 (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Puzzled...

I get the "Image X except on article Y" entries, but what about the entries with no "...except on..." listed? Does that imply that they can't be used on any article? If so, why not just delete them? (not advocating deletion, just asking a question). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The images are on Commons. Only on the English Wikipedia the images can't be used, without adding the exception. Garion96 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Got it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing three images

Never come here before, so I'm not clear what to do. I've just deleted File:Nude beach bodmod style.jpg, File:Horse penis.jpg, and File:Female urination.jpg, because they consisted solely of the badimage template — all were Commons images that have recently been deleted. Will the bot automatically remove them from this list, or will we have to do something? Reading the instructions only confused me — if "a bot keeps images in alphabetical order and removes deleted images", why do we need to be instructed to "please double-check that the relevant image talk page has been deleted as well" when removing deleted images? Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the bot just recreates the image pages. I've re-deleted those file pages and removed them from the list. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image

{{editprotected}} Could an admin please remove File:Trollface.svg from the list, it has been deleted, but the bot keeps recreating the file description page with the restricted image template. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary censorship

Does this list violate WP:NOTCENSORED? It is surprising that specific images are censored from Wikipedia, despite the existence of this guideline. Jarble (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, are there any specific criteria for deciding which images are considered obscene? Which users allowed to decide which images to block? Jarble (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

For the most part, images are put here when some vandal uses them as a short of shock image, or when there is obvious potential for such. There's no other way to prevent a changing IP address to add such images wherever they like. --Conti|✉ 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Which users are allowed to add images to the list? I'd be a bit worried if the censorship process was completely arbitrary (instead of community-driven) - who filters these images, and decides whether or not editors are allowed to use them? Jarble (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears that only administrators are allowed to make changes to the list - that's a bit surprising. Jarble (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

if there is the thread of large misuse then i can understand why this page should be protected. If it isn't, vandals could unblock the images by there own and put them in unexpected places again. But I'm also worried about the process, because there are many images listed that weren't used for any vandalism. I just recently requested four of my own images to be removed from the list, that were simply put there because someone claimed that they could be misused. If this is really a tool against permanent vandalism, then only images should be listed that are repeatedly used for vandalism. Images that have stayed for a longer period on the list should be unlisted again. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any way to tell by looking at the image page/information, whether an image has been used for vandalism once that vandalism is reverted. As to the bigger issue, there are a couple of ways to look at it. First, while it would be possible to make the list editable by anyone, it would require the changes to be made to a transcluded page, and so the process would need to be moved there. As to the WP:NOTCENSORED question, for it to really violate that, a good faith requests to white list a page for an image would need to be denied in such a way as to violate NOTCENSORED. Looking back, I see few rejected requests, is it really an issue? Monty₈₄₅ 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The list is in MediaWiki space, which only administrators can edit. Transcluding the page means that the software driving the list will not function. Risker (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist

can you add File:Anal bleaching.jpg to this blacklist? One IP is pestering me with this image. Forgot to put name 05:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Handjob.JPG

File:Handjob.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was misused today at Verpa bohemica. Can it go on the list? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete some of these images?

Some of these images (e.g. File:A dilated male anus.jpg) are stated as being completely forbidden, and not allowed in any page. If so, why keep them? Can they be deleted and save the store space that they are using? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Because we on Commons don't care if you don't want to use our images, we think someone else might. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of an essay: Say no to Commons. --auburnpilot talk 00:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Saving space isn't really a concern, but there likely wouldn't be any harm in going through this list to remove images that have been on here for an extended period of time. As far as I know, this list was never meant to have images listed permanently. Images are to be added when used for vandalism/disruption. --auburnpilot talk 00:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting them won't save storage space anyway, as the old versions are kept around indefinitely in case they are to be undeleted. Anomie⚔ 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot I

I've made a major update to the script as well as a few bug fixes including the bug, that everyone hated, where the bot recreates the page of a deleted image.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on April 22, 2013

Can someone remove File:Female unshaved genitalia.jpg and File:Male pubic 2.jpg, as they don't even exist? Thanks. ^King Jakob _C2 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

New request

{{Edit protected}}

Lock File:QN_Faggot.jpg for use in Queer Nation only, plz? It was used to vandalize the Obama article today, and seems like a ripe target for other vandalism down the road. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Done! --auburnpilot talk 19:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm not too well-versed in this...

...can anyone add the images that have been used by User:85.26.183.40 recently as vandalism? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

One was already on there; I added the other two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hentai image

File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg was moved from Hentai to History of hentai under the "Origin of eroge" section, can an admin enable the picture so it can be used in it's new location? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 02:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for mastectomy photograph (File:Mastectomie 02.jpg)

I, User: Otto Placik, am editing the Free flap breast reconstruction, and so request that the image File:Mastectomie 02.jpg be released so that I can use it in the article page.

Thanks.

Otto Placik (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for mastectomy photograph (File:Mastectomie 02.jpg)

I, User: Otto Placik, am editing the Free flap breast reconstruction article, and so request that the image File:Mastectomie 02.jpg be released so that I can use it in the article page.

Thanks.

Otto Placik (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very much!

Otto Placik (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for permission of restricted media

Requesting permission to use the file File:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.ogv in the Bengla version article of wiki:bn:বীর্যস্খলন রাহাত | ✉ 08:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My_man_2013-07-26_22-26.jpg

Requesting File:My_man_2013-07-26_22-26.jpg be added, as no legitimate use is apparent, but it has been used for vandalism ([9]). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Can files be added to this list from commons to prevent inappropriate use here?

Per this response to this question in regards to some inappropriate file usage in userboxes, I'm here requesting that commons:File:Masturbation_Techniques_-_the_basic_fist_method_(animated).gif, commons:File:Ejaculation_of_penis.jpg, commons:File:Wiki-gangbang.png, and commons:File:Facial.jpg to this list if that is possible to do cross-wiki. Thank you for your consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If they have only been used in that once instance, inside an editor's own userspace, I don't think listing them is justified. Monty₈₄₅ 17:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the usage section on commons, some of those images are used on more than just that users userspace. That being said, no-one WP:OWNS anything on Wikipedia, and the "it's their personal userspace" doesn't validate the images for use there. They are inappropriate outside of article's on the topics that they represent (such as perhaps Masterbation or Threesome (as commons:File:Wiki-gangbang.png is properly used on and should be an exception if these are added to the list). Technical 13 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the rules of the bad image list there should be only images listed that had "been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical.". Listing every 'maybe' objectional image is not the goal of this list, that is meant to prevent vandalism. We will always have to consider that there are many discussion and building places on WP that will be hindered by blocking an unnecessarily large amount of images. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Machete Tropics.jpg

Requesting File:Machete Tropics.jpg be added, as no legitimate use is apparent. Credo Reference, a library tool marketed to the K-12 audience, has this picture showing up under the "tropics" article, which is inappropriate. (talk) Ndlibraryadvocate (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, although I don't see that it ever was on the tropics article—how did it appear there? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

you may need a credo reference subscription to see this link: http://www.credoreference.com/topic/tropics Thanks for the timely response! Ndlibraryadvocate (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A similar function for disambiguation links?

Greetings. The disambiguation project would like to establish a system by which editors seeking to make an edit that would introduce a new disambiguation link to a page would be alerted to this situation before being allowed to save their edit. I have been told at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Disambiguation links that this can not be done through the edit filter, but that the library of suspect links in the bad image list may provide a model for this functionality. Can anyone provide some insight into how we can institute such a function? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to reinstate Scrotum warm and cold.jpg

This image is an educational series, and has been the primary image for the Wikipedia EN Scrotum article for over two years (verifiable by the history). I believe the Bad Image request was made by someone who wanted to swap out this picture with a picture of their own genitals to place on the article.--Brallion (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

 Whitelisted for scrotum. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Other addition?

It's not that I think that Courbet's Sleep is a bad piece of art but I think that L'Origine du monde should use a smaller version so when one clicks on their user name, one is not SMACK!, opening up a sex scene on ones computer. I mean I don't think that image could be enlarged any further. I've never seen a User Page with a scroll bar.
Is there any aspect of "bad images" that deals with the size of the image, not the image itself? I find many of these images okay as thumbnails but when genitalia and breasts fill my entire screen? Well, let's just say I regret clicking on that account while I'm working in Starbucks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there really a problem? Where is the requirement to cater to corporate censorship? I get no previews -can i disable yours for my page? I have no desire for anyone to be shocked by an 1866 painting - that said, if you don't look at it at full resolution you cant see the brush strokes, and potentially offensive bits are not in the initial view. In any case, this is not the proper forum for this discussion - it should be on my talkpage, I think.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 01:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Corporate censorship"? What the heck are you talking about, I was just responding to the sex image on your User Page. If you click on the file link in the first sentence, you'll see that there are different sizes of the image. I'd recommend selecting a smaller version so your User Page doesn't require a scroll bar. IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Request use of file:Origin-of-the-World.jpg in Gustave Courbet userbox

• The block on file:Origin-of-the-World.jpg to be lifted for {{User Gustave Courbet}} please.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 23:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Image used for vandalism

• File:Female and male anus.jpg except on Human anus

An IP-hopping anonymous user has been placing this image on Timeline of Google Street View for shock value. Paris1127 (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, Woody (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ED Logo

I would like to create userbox for participants of ED, or at least to use this picture on my user page inside such a userbox. See my user page source. Qnyx77 (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg from the Bad image list

This file depicting the famous 1866 oil painting l'Origine du monde by the French artist Courbet, on public display in the Musee d'Orsay in Paris was added to the list, without discussion, by User:Reaper Eternal. This removed it from a number of pages in the userspace where it had happily been for many years with no complaints. He made this addition because he objected to me displaying the image on my user page, which he had previously deleted (he also wrongly blocked me, hence the delay in this request). Given that there had been no widespread problem with this image of an iconic painting, I request it's removal.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a related discussion ongoing at WP:ANI#User:L'Origine du monde. FYI. No real comment on the merits at this time - except that I can't find the diff of this image being added to the list. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 04:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Bad_image_list&diff=568931215&oldid=561665939 Diff of image being added to the list. Monty₈₄₅ 04:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I dunno, seems like a typical "Use me for vandalism" image. I don't know if it needs to be on this list, but I totally get why it's there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Support removal. Is there a policy page on this use of the list? NE Ent 11:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is not censored  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

What are you opposing KoshVorlon? Are you opposing the image being on the list, or the image being removed from the list as this section proposes? I'm assuming that you oppose it being on the list per your WP:NOTCENSORED comment, is this correct? Technical 13 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13 , you're correct, I'm opposing it's addition to the list.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make a note here, there is a sockpuppet group that has used this image and others as shock images on user and user talk pages. (Mine being one of them, any admin can take a look at the revdel'ed examples.) Werieth (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Not done. The request to remove the image from the list is declined: the image has been used for vandalism and, so, belongs on the list; furthermore, under WP:UP#Non-free images, the use of sexualised images is usually not permitted in userspace Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [modified, per request, on 00:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)]

• If the image is used legitimately at "a number of pages in the userspace", then maybe those pages should be added as exceptions where the image is allowed? There are currently only exceptions for the pages in the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no legitimate reason to display nudity on one's user page, pages which are supposed to be brief introductions by the user and his/her interests for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. It isn't facebook, it isn't a blog, and it isn't an ideological platform. Keep this image on the blacklist, please, and do not carve out exceptions for any userspace page. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Per Wikipedia:UP#Non-free images, There is also broad consensus that you should not have any image in your userspace that would bring the project into disrepute and you may be asked to remove such images. Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit or using Wikipedia only as a web host or personal pages or for advocacy, may be removed by any user (or deleted), subject to appeal at deletion review. So, personally, I think that, generally speaking, the use of this image in userspace should be avoided; although there may be exceptions, which should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

    Before anyone asks, no, I don't think that using this image on L'Origine du monde should be allowed, so, no, I won't grant an exception in this case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support removal from the list. WP:NOTCENSORED and there is no valid reason for it to be on the list that I can see at this time. Technical 13 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• If the editor in question really, really has to have this on their userpage, then I would suggest a simple sentence saying "I took my username from l'Origine du monde by the French artist Courbet." Then anyone who wishes to do so may follow the link and see what all the fuss is about. I think Salvio's point about Wikipedia:UP#Non-free images is an important one, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removal from the list, but entertain requests for exceptions to allow well-justified use (per WP:COMMONSENSE) in User space. As is always the case, context is key. This image has a high potential to be misused by vandals. But, I can see a case where it would be appropriate in User space by, for example, and editor who does significant work on article content in the Realist movement or biographies of French painters and would like to illustrate a thumbnail gallery of articles significantly improved, or brought to GA, etc. Such exceptions could be handled on a per-request basis.

  Regarding the WP:NOTCENSORED argument, WP:NOTCENSORED applies to article content, it does not apply to User space, see WP:UPNOT where it says "Wikipedia is not censored" relates to article pages and images; in other namespaces there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community. Zad68 15:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• If I can comment as a relatively long term regular on this page, after what Zad68 said. This page has always functioned well by not taking any moral position on requests for exceptions. If it's not vandalism, then we have always traditionally listed the request. Indeed any inclusions of the image at the time of listing are normally included in the exceptions without question. The fact is that problems with the usage should be resolved elsewhere. I believe at least one user has been sanctioned by the community before for posting pussy on their userpage, so I would not recommend doing so, especially after an admin deleted it. However this is not the place to decide that. This image is typical of ones used for vandalism (in fact I think I've seen it used before), so I oppose any removal but support any exception. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• " Images on the list have normally been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical." If this has happened, why was this image not added to the list when this happened, or if it happens in the future could it not be added again? This list is not designed to be used as a tool in content disputes between editors.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 22:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed a problem (though perhaps it's with my computer)--when I hover over L'Origine's username, my tooltips popup still shows the image. And let me tell you, it's fascinating art, but it's very very important that it not appear in this type of manner. Users must be able to edit safely while in a workplace or other public space; for articles, I can simply pick and choose which articles I visit in those places, reserving editing of "controversial" or "NSFW" sites for my home, but I should never have to worry about landing on such an image on a user's page; otherwise, it practically makes it impossible for me to edit, since even hovering over the name can reveal the image. If this is just me needed to clean my cache or something, let me know.

On the actual matter, whether or not the image was added at the right time, and even if it was a content dispute of some type between L'Origine and an admin, the clear point is that it was used for vandalism, and thus must be on the list now, with all necessary article space exceptions, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is a great painting, dating back to 1866, that shows part of a naked woman. It has not been subject to widespread abuse, and is an important part of European cultural heritage. It is a "Museum Quality" painting. WP:UP#Images that would bring the project into disrepute describes "Content clearly intended as sexually provocative (images and in some cases text) or to cause distress and shock that appears to have little or no project benefit." The most provocative thing about the painting is normally considered to be the pubic hair. The various user pages that had the painting removed by this ban were either not sexually provocative or intended to cause distress or shock, or failed to do so. While it is obviously harder to remove an image from a banned list than it is to add it, the point of this list is to deal with abuse in a reactive way. While it has been claimed that this painting has been used for vandalism once or twice, Wikicommons has many media that have no artistic merit, and could be used for vandalism - for example [10] - and are not on this list. If vandals really want to stick a picture of a naked woman on wikipedia, why stop them using a great painting? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 01:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  L'Origine du monde Please check your facts, I know for a fact that at least three different users have had either their talk page or user page replaced with this image. It was done by multiple accounts/IPs over a period of time, and this was taken cross project after the users where blocked on enwiki. Just because the content was deleted as abusive (and correctly done for that matter) doesnt mean it didnt happen, just that you cannot see it. Werieth (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Images on the list have normally been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical." Do you mean three users over a period of time- if so it would seem as though user blocks and page protections have proved practical ? I have never argued for the right to exhibit this painting in userspace without permission of the user.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is no valid reason to use this image on a user page, the only purpose is to be a "look at me I'm being disruptive!" user. Since that isn't what user pages should be used for, this image should not be available for user-space, in any context. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  That is your opinion. However this is not supposed to be a list of images unsuitable for user-space, but a list of images that have "been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical. " It also seems derogatory of myself, User:Puddhe, User:Klassikkomies, and User:Jethwarp. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)</ref>

From [[11]] "WP:MediaWiki:Bad image list restricts specified images from being seen except on its image page and certain articles. It is possible to prevent these images from being viewed at all by changing your account's javascript page. See User:Mr.Z-man/badimages for details. Note that this has limited utility as images are added to the bad image list because of concerns about disruptive use and vandalism, not because someone finds the image objectionable. Many images that some readers may find objectionable are not eligible for the list." ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 01:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that 1 week on with zero responses, no one cares. Find something better to do in this project other than trying to finagle ways to get a 147-year-old vajayjay on to your user page. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You have clearly stated above your opposition to this image, and your willingness to question the motives of those who support it. Bad image list policy has been broken. It is not supposed to be used to censor users, but to stop widespread vandalism that cannot be stopped in otherways.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 02:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I see you are just ignoring the repeated (now deleted) attacks on both my user page and talk page, along with the same thing that happened to several other users, from a user who utilized open proxies to vandalize our pages with graphic images including this one. That is why it was added. Werieth (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

[[User:Werieth|Werieth] when did that happen? How was it stopped? Surely the problem is not the image used, but how your pages are protected. There are many worse images than an 1866 painting for a vandal to use, unless you are accusing me of being that user.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot pull exact diffs due to them being deleted, but it was in August that I stumbled upon the vandal. Its not a issue with protection. As soon as an admin protected one target the vandal shifted to someone else (They preferred targeting those that reverted his additions.). There where several other images as a result where also added to this list. Werieth (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth you are saying there was one vandal in August using this painting. Why did you not discuss adding the image here? Was he engaging in widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections were impractical? Were the other images valued components of European Visual Culture? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The vandal in question was hopping IP addresses using open proxies (which make blocking an ineffective solution), and was going from user to user when one page got protected they just shifted targets. [12] was also blacklisted due to abuse. I never brought it to this page per WP:RBI. However other administrators felt that adding the images that where being used as goatse images was a better solution. The graphic images when used for abuse dont need discussed. Werieth (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• The bad image list is for images that could be reasonably construed as being potential targets for vandalism. We do not want this painting plastered over Sesame street or Barack Obama by a vandal, even for a second. It is preventative, which is the reason behind most blocking mechanisms on Wikipedia. Thus, it should remain on the list, with exceptions given per standard. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• This list is not meant to be preventative in a broad sense. There has to be an actual case in which a image was used for wide spread vandalism that can't be stopped by blocking or banning the user. "Images on the list have normally been used for widespread vandalism where user blocks and page protections are impractical." That an image might be used for vandalism is not a reason to put an image on this list, or would you put any picture of bacon on the list because it might be inserted in articles related to Judaism? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 18:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for addition to this list

I just reverted the addition of File:Bareback anal penetration NO CONDOMS used in sexual intercouse 2.jpg (warning: very NSFW) from an article, and I would like to request it be added to this list so no one will be able to use it for vandalism again. Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Add these images

Please add File:Ejaculate animated 1.gif, File:Ejaculate 0001.jpg, and File:Male Ejaculation.JPG to the list. They have recently been used in vandalism. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

New image for the list

A vandal on Timeline of Google Street View replaced the contents of the page with File:Bajs.jpg. It seems like an image that belongs on the Bad image list. Paris1127 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Another request for addition to this list

Someone just added Wiki-POV-pornography.png to Tim Burton. It should be added to this list so no one can use it for vandalism again. Jinkinson talk to me 19:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on December 24, 2013

Can someone add File:Erect penis shaved.JPG to the list? Was just used in a vandalism spree. --Jakob (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Done by Nick. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg

Please allow for Human penis. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. - BanyanTree 07:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Wiki-fellatio02.png

Can an exception be made for File:Wiki-fellatio02.png on Ass to mouth. Another user just legitimately tried to add it there, but failed because it's not on the exceptions list. Thanks! – RobinHood70 ^talk 11:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The current image is of deep throat which isnt an essential part of ass to mouth so this image illustrates the act better♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg

I would like to add this file image to cartoon pornography which currently has no illustrations, this would make a good illustration♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Although it's by definition not a "good" illustration if it's listed here :) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Mark Arsten, I brought up the same "not a good illustration" factor with regard to using that image for that article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was just making a joke about a "good illustration" on the "Bad image list". Although I fulfilled the edit request, I'm not necessarily endorsing its use in that article, just allowing it as an option. It's probably best to have a talk page discussion first if its presence on the page is contentious. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Woman naked Buttocks.jpg

Is not that overkill? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Anal bleaching.jpg

I've nominated Anal_bleaching.jpg to be a featured image. As I argue on my nomination, I think this image stands head and shoulders above similarly categorized images on wikipedia. Please allow this image to be displayed on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates until the matter is properly adjudicated. Thanks! Greg Comlish (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I support this request. DES ^(talk) 23:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As noted at WP:AN, the image can be linked, rather than displayed, in the FPC nomination, and that allows FPC discussion to take place. It also means that people don't have to see it unless they specifically want to. Bencherlite^Talk 00:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Scheide.jpg

Would it be possible to add an exception for File:Scheide.jpg so that it can be used on the labia page? Thanks in advance! --kyledueck (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again :) --kyledueck (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Female sexual arousal.JPG

Another exception request for the labia page, this time for File:Female sexual arousal.JPG, please and thanks! --kyledueck (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly abused non-free media

File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg should only be used in Hezbollah however it is often used similar to other flags in the same manor that {{flag icon}} is. This leads to non-compliance with WP:NFCC and Im removing it from about 5-10 articles every other week or so. Werieth (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you give some diffs? This page is more normally used for blacklisting images used for vandalism rather than images that are misused in good faith, so this is probably worth some discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

12 3 4 from the most recent set. Werieth (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: 1 2 3 4 5 more removals. Werieth (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You realise that adding it to the bad image list won't prevent people adding it to articles, it'll just prevent it displaying? If you want to stop people adding it, you might be better of with an edit filter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I do, I think an edit filter for the small subset of articles is overkill. Limiting the display would work best since there are quite a few ways an image can be added to an article. Werieth (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.  Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Werieth (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Wiki-missionary.png

I recently noticed that File:Wiki-missionary.png image is only approved for the Missionary position article thus far. Since it is the most common human sex position, as noted in that article and in the Sex position article, it seems best that this image be allowed in the Sex position article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Flyer22, it was already OK'd for Sex positions which is a redir, I fixed it. Zad68 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Zad68, it still is not showing up for the Sex position article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that it's working now. It didn't seem like I simply needed to refresh my browser, though. Maybe it actually took some time before showing up? Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Files deleted on Commons or otherwise nonexistent

Apparently there is a bot that removes deleted files, but it doesn't seem to detect deletions on Commons: there are several files that were deleted on commons, as follows:

• File:Anus homme.jpg
• File:Ca before after.jpg
• File:Human_penis_and_scrotum.JPG
• File:Human_penis_comparison.jpg
• File:Male Ejaculation.JPG
• File:Male-anus.JPG
• File:Penis.jpg
• File:Sexual_intercourse_with_woman_in_fishnet_stockings.jpg

All have local description pages except File:Penis.jpg and File:Male Ejaculation.JPG (though I've tagged them all with {{db-f2}} and they may be gone by the time you read this message). I initially thought the bot was tripping over these pages still existing locally, but since there are two that are redlinks I think it's detecting deletions of files rather than pages, or something. If someone could teach the bot about Commons, it would eliminate the need to make this kind of request in the future - and I foresee myself making more such requests if that doesn't happen.

Also, I have noticed the page File:Encyclopedia Dramatica logo.png (which falls into the category of 'otherwise nonexistent') -- the file is on Commons and is located at File:Ed logo.png; the en.wp description page was moved but the commons file was not, which resulted in the file being separated from its page. I think a rename request on commons would be appropriate, actually -- bringing it up here is probably stupid, but you never know. Cathfolant (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Done @Cathfolant: I've removed all the deleted files. I haven't done anything about the Encyclopedia Dramatica logo, as I wasn't quite sure what you wanted done from your description here. If more action is necessary, please reopen the request. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Young-woman-urinating.jpg

Maybe I'm just squeamish, but maybe File:Young-woman-urinating.jpg could go on the list? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: And again at Portal:Nudity/Selected picture. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Scrotal inflation images

File:Meine Hodensackinfusion detail.jpg should probably be approved only for inclusion in the article scrotal inflation, and perhaps also for medical fetishism, which are as far as I can see the only articles for which it might be relevant. There are a whole bunch of other similar images at commons:Category:Scrotal_inflation, which I suggest should just be put on the list without approval for any article, as we only need one image in the scrotal inflation article, and there have been previous attempts to build a gallery on that page (see this revision for an example) in a way that seemed to have no encyclopedic purpose. -- Emerine (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests to add

• File:Givingthefinger.jpg
• File:Bos taurus taurus turd.jpg

I can't see any reason these need to be used anywhere other than they are now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Genital herpes

I'm intending to add File:Genital herpes.jpg to the Genital herpes article to demonstrate an appearance not currently shown. First, however, I'd like to know whether it should be restricted to that Genital herpes article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The image doesn't appear in the target article, perhaps because the article name is, in fact Herpes genitalis (IMPOV, would be more appropriate for Latin Wikipedia), and I didn't think about the redirect in my last entry. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nazism symbol should be removed

Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL encyclopedia. Neutral is to not put any signs and flags of Extreme countries and -isms like Nazism and Sovietism. 113.253.23.2 (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. The point of this list is to keep those kinds of images from being used for vandalism. We add exceptions for every page that has an encyclopedic use for them. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Add image to portal

The image File:Hentai - yuuree-redraw.jpg could go at Portal:Pornography in the Selected Image section, as its within scope. I'd like to request that it be allowed for use there. its currently at Portal:Pornography/Featured picture/60, but is blocked. I should point out that a previous editor at the portal had requested that no explicit images be used there, but i dont think thats a valid guideline for the pornography portal, and old drawings of an explicit nature are there- i think people may have been worried about contemporary hardcore porn photos, which we dont have a lot of anyway. If there is any other reasons for the restriction, please let me know so i can choose another image for that slot.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have an additional request, to add either of these images, thumb|right|A bukkake scene, or thumb|Bukkake with two males, to the Portal selected article Bukkake, here: Portal:Pornography/Featured article/6. same rationale as above.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 August 2014

Remove entry File:Male-anus.JPG, which links to a deleted file. Seduisant (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting addition

File:Genital_Diversity.jpg -- Seen this numerous times with vandalism to BLP articles. Requesting it's use be restricted. —Frosty ☃ 11:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done . — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

File:KonnoHachiman-Sculpture-2.jpg

Not a potentially-profane image per se, but a sockpuppeteer has been using this for his articles concerning a fictitious criminal enterprise dubbed as the "sindikato". Blake Gripling (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this might be useful to keep whitelisted, for the very reason you mention, if you follow what I mean. Crow^Caw 17:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)