Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Bad image list

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Bad image list

I fail to see how this helps to stop vandals. Vandals will vandalize with or without these images (see an example) and most vandalism is reverted within 60 seconds anyway. The listing of images here prevents their legitimate uses while doing very little to stop vandals. The only use I can see for this page is censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. -Gerard Foley 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Note: This is the first page I nominated for deletion on Wikipedia (which I do in good faith). Please don't get mad at me if I got it wrong.

I just want to point out the fact that they have been no delete votes on this (except mine). If someone wants to end it please do. Gerard Foley 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To rile up support for deletion of this User:-Ril- made the following disingenous entry in Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. Netscott 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Gerard Foley 22:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. You probably wasn't here when the Autofellatio image was spammed not to articles, but to user talk pages. The list was created in response to that incident, and it did stop the vandals who were doing that. --cesarb 22:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  No, I probably wasn't. Do you have links? Leave them on my talk page so as not to clutter this page up. Gerard Foley 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  I prefer to put them here, since they are relevant to the discussion. I just had to look at the history of my own user talk page: Special:Contributions/Oftheball and Special:Contributions/Archeos. There were many more, these were just the ones that managed to hit mine. --cesarb 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see how this is any worse then any other type of vandalism. Do vandals say "Oh! I can't use this image. I'll stop vandalizing now", or do they just look for some other image to use? Gerard Foley 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  For some reason I can't quite understand, pictures of human penises are considered highly offensive (see MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Here's a penis, there's a penis, and another little penis...), so after they were blocked by the bad image list, that kind of vandalism reduced a lot (since the replacements were't offensive enough for the vandals, probably). --cesarb 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Oh, and by the way, the image you are concerned about (Talk:Autofellatio#Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg) had been removed from the article and changed to a link some time before the bad image list was created. Pages are only added to that list when there are no legitimate uses, i.e., they are not being used on any article (with the exception of temporary additions to the list in case of mass vandalism). --cesarb 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, has proven quite useful in stopping vandalism. Just look at the history of a page like Template:Bio-stub. - SimonP 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Modify to only censor images user namespace. What if vandals start putting Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg on user pages? Are we willing to censor that image in the article as well? —Ruud 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain per Sam. —Ruud 02:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is arguably a policy discussion and does not belong here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok then if this is policy discussion and does not belong here where can I discuss it? --UVnet 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is not the appropriate venue for this discussion.  ALKIVAR™ 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Sam and Alkivar. — Matt Crypto 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's part of the software anyway..mediawiki: pages can be blanked to be unused, but it looks bad to delete them. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 19:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes it could be misused and that happens we can revisit the question. In the meantime serves a useful purpose. Herostratus 08:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The page is totally selective and POV - why isn't Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg on it for example? A large percentage of the world population find it offensive. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  For two reasons: first, because it's being used inline on an article (images used inline on an article cannot be added to the list, since it would force them to become linked); second, because they are not used for mass vandalism (the list is to be used only for mass vandalism). --cesarb 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Freedom of speech before all. There is no policy discussion over this in the village pump. --UVnet 15:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  There is no freedom of speech issue, since only images which are not being used inline on an article and which have consensus against being used inline on their corresponding articles are added to the list. And there was discussion about it — almost a full year ago. A lot of policies were discussed on places other than the Village Pump. But if you want to start a new discussion about it there, feel free to. --cesarb 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, whether this page should exist or not is a technical question and not one for MFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Calling this censorship is funny. Images are only added by consensus, and then only to stop vandalism, and as if that weren't enough, PEOPLE CAN STILL SEE THEM IF THEY WANT TO. (Also, shrunken, useless-for-vandalism versions of many of these images remain inline in articles - see, e.g. Penis.) If people were vandalizing en masse using the Muhammad cartoon, I guarantee you it would be added to here. If this list were based on offensiveness, I guarantee it would contain pictures of women as well as men (for reasons that are interesting to speculate about, vandals don't seem to find female genitalia as offensive). ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.