Wikipedia talk:Image vandalism prevention proposal

Use the special page?

Hmmm. I just looked at MediaWiki:Bad image list and it says at the top, "For performance reasons, please try to keep this page fairly short, say less than 10 KB." Somehow I think this might put it over that limit. And don't forget that images in Wikimedia Commons can be used here, and the only way to see new images there is to go there and look.

Perhaps it would be better just to make Special:Newimages a bit more prominent, if there were many pairs of eyes looking at that "bad" images would be spotted just as quickly. Perhaps draw attention to it at the top of the recent changes page or even put a link in the sidebar, as Commons has – Qxz 01:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... WP:BITE?

This tells new users, essentially, "We do not trust you, so you don't get to use images without waiting for an admin to unblock them". Furthermore, this does not solve image vandalism, because image vandalism is more frequently done with images that already are uploaded. -Amark moo! 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amarkov. Also IMO it will just create more work for admins for a seemingly low benifit. Harryboyles 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess that all forms of page protection violate WP:BITE as well (they don't trust IP editors, registered editors with low edit count, or non-admins to make useful edits to pages). WP:BITE only applies to cases when new users are blatantly and unjustly accused of vandalism, which this is not. You say that this won't help much, but do you remember what happened on Christmas Eve? (A vandal uploaded several shock images, added them to an unprotected template on the main page, and the result was that the entire page was covered with them for about 9 minutes). Images that are already uploaded can be handled by the bad image list, so with the list, the only source of image vandalism available is uploading images and quickly spamming them before they are deleted.--Azer Red Si? 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't create more admin work. It reduces it. Admins are already supposed to be monitoring the new images log for bad images, most of which would be uploaded by newly-registered users. By designating all images uploaded by new users to a certain section, this makes it easier for admins to detect images that are likely to be used for vandalism.--Azer Red Si? 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a list for images uploaded by new users, just not the idea of forcing new users to ask for admin permission to have them displayed, as the proposal is now. Having the aforementioned list would make it easier for admins to focus on a specific type of contributions, like Recent changes, without any commitment from administrators as a whole. It could be an option on the existing image upload log. However I feel that there are other aspects of the proposal that have not been dealt with or are missing. What happens if a user passes the 4-day limit? Will the images suddenly be allowed to display? How will the process of users getting permission be implemented. Will backlogs form if or when the rate of uploads become too much? Even though I know this is early in the pipeline, so to speak, I would like to see assessments by members of various parties involved (admins and new users the most prominent). What are the (rough) percentages regarding the ratio of good images to bad images and what would be the benifit based from this. Harryboyles 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well one thing that you're concerned about that I probably didn't discuss thoroughly is the issue of users having to ask for permission to have their images "unlocked". Under my system, it would be very rare that a user would have to actually ask this, as the admins who monitor the list would by default unlock any entries that are harmless.--Azer Red Si? 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amarkov and Harryboyles. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Where are you going to get these admins to monitor the list from? CAT:CSD is chronically backlogged, andCAT:UNBLOCK, which should be dealt with near-immediately, usually has a few unchecked entries. So where are you going to find the admins to patrol something which is added to about once every twenty seconds? -Amark moo! 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that admins already monitor the upload log for vandal uploads (if they don't, then no wonder image vandalism is such a problem). The creation of this list would help highlight the uploads that are the most likely to be malicious (those by new users), so most of the admins who monitor the upload log for vandalism could instead divert their attention to this list.--Azer Red Si? 04:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't. At least, we do, lots, but not enough. We wouldn't have the image deletion backlogs if we had enough people to review images as they came in. I wish we did, but we don't. Go vote for more folks at RfA. (Note that I burnt out on doing more or less exactly this a few months ago, and only just returned, so my opinion may be a bit biased...) JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are you still assuming that image vandalism is done from uploads? It's not like we don't already have obscene pictures... -Amark moo! 15:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But we do have MediaWiki:Bad image list which prevents all images there from actually being displayed. Ideally, all explicit images that are used on Wikipedia for legitimate reasons would be on this list, so in that scenario, the only way that image vandalism could occur would be through uploading vandal images and posting them on pages before they get deleted. If you don't think that vandalism is done by uploaded images, then either you weren't here Christmas Eve, or you haven't read my above comments thoroughly.--Azer Red Si? 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, ideally. Ideally, we would have more admins, so that something like this would actually be practical. For that matter, ideally, we'd have no need for admins, because nobody would ever need to be blocked, and no pages would need protection or deletion. -Amark moo! 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There'a a slight difference. What I was referring to could simply be accomplished by tracking down all of the explicit images that are used legitimately on Wikipedia and adding them to the above list. What you're referring to would only be possible in an ideal world.--Azer Red Si? 00:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, we've gotten off topic. Sorry. Anyway, regardless of the merits of the bad image list, you still will not be able to find the admins to keep this from being a chronic backlog. -Amark moo! 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeance

I don't think this would be good. Its as if the proposer doesn't trust newly registered users by putting their images on a bad image list. They need to be welcomed goodly and peacefully. Not everything a new user does is bad. I created The Holy article when I was a new user. I did pretty good without insult. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 22:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So then I assume you're also in favor of unprotecting the main page and every other protected and semi-protected page? Protecting those pages doesn't show trust toward newer users either, as it assumes that unregistered users, newer users, and/or non-admins would have bad reasons for wanting to edit those pages.--Azer Red Si? 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I agree with what the proposal is trying to do, but to process all images uploaded by newly registered user by assuming that an action taken is vandalism until proven otherwise would seem to challenge Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Also, preventing an image from appearing on a page when posted there may leave the newly registered user wondering whether they made a mistake and they may give up on Wikipedia thinking they don't know how to make images appear on a page. I think having a bot separate images for review into those being uploaded by newly registered users and those uploaded by others is a good idea, however. -- Jreferee 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A Worried User

Strong Object: Look, I'm familiar with WP:NOT (specifically to "Wikipedia is not a democracy,") but are we obligated to follow a policy of the 1% percent rule? By this, I mean that if one out of every new user's uploaded images is explicit and unencylcopedic, we must waylay and harass the other 99. This could easily discourage new users from participating, cutting Wikipedia of from its vital supply of fresh eyes.

I understand the goal here, i.e., to stop explicit images from ending up here when unnecessay in the article. However, I think this proposal will do more harm than good, and better alternatives must be examined for viability. We should examine our options and pursue a more flexible and open policy without losing the security this one provides.

It is easy to entrust this policy with the duty of safeguarding Wikipedia from the piles of spam and acts of photovandalism. Many users will be willing to forgo the obvious aformentioned problems for security. However, they look over a major concern. This will end up as a huge backlog. With so much being uploaded and Wikipedia growing so fast, the task of sifting through all of these files will be insurmountable. The problem is worse than that. Such tasks should be taken out by sysops, of which there are few. If we leave it up to the new users, they could easily remove their explicit images from the list upon uploading them.

Following users, I beg you not to support this proposal. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with objection I agree, this is a bad idea. Does anyone know the specifics of how expanding the Bad Image List like this would affect performance? Additionally, if people are patrolling Special:Newimages, this shouldn't be much of a problem anyway. Vandal images stick out like a sore thumb on that page. You don't need to be an admin to do this, either -- just remove the image from any pages it's been added to, and tag it for speedy deletion. As already mentioned, there are things we can do to encourage more new image patrollers and/or direct admin attention to vandal images that have been tagged for deletion. Furthermore, you don't need to be an admin to upload an innocuous image in place of a vandal image (for example, to immediately remove the vandal image if it's already been added to a large number of articles). Dave6 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Making a few things clear

Sorry, I've probably been a little edgy in discussing this proposal. Though I would like to clarify a few points that other editors seem a little confused about:

1. This violates WP:BITE. - I disagree. This isn't blatantly accusing editors of uploading images for vandalism. It's just taking some precaution in the case that images are uploaded for vandalism. One could argue that page protection violates WP:BITE because it doesn't show trust toward new editors. I know that we all dream of an ideal world in which everyone would just behave themselves, but sadly we can't always trust people to do that and precautions have to be taken to counter such misbehavior.
2. This will not help prevent vandalism. Vandals will just use explicit images that are already uploaded to Wikipedia and used legitimately. - If all legitimate explicit images are added to MediaWiki:Bad image list, then that will eliminate vandals' ability to vandalize with any images that are hosted by Wikipedia. However, there is currently no way to prevent vandalism with images that are uploaded and immediately used to vandalize pages short of managing to detect them and delete them before the vandal can make use of them. If my proposal was implemented, it would eliminate vandals' only image vandalism option (assuming that some admins simply take the time to add all legitimate explicit images to the above list).
3. This will require more admin work - Not really. Many admins already patrol the new image log looking for images that are uploaded for vandalism. The same admins that patrol that log could simply patrol my list instead, as it would contain the images that would most likely be vandal images. This wouldn't require recruiting more admins. It would just require some of the admins who already patrol the new image log to divert their attention to my log.

I hope this helps clear some things up.--Azer Red Si? 20:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the admins are not sufficient to cover the log, or people would not be able to vandalize with recently uploaded obscene images. I remember a page on NP patrol a little while ago that had like 10 obscene images, uploaded in the last 5 minutes. -Amark moo! 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How much of a problem is this ?

In my somewhat limited anti-vandalism experience I tended to see pre-existing images used for this purpose - i.e. Darth Sidious. I've actually never seen someone go to the trouble of uploading an image to vandalize an article. Can we have some numbers to support this (percentage of incidents, number of incidents a day), given that it's going to be a more work for the average admin. Megapixie 08:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how often it happens, but some of the most notorious image vandalism incidents have involved it (such as the one I mentioned above: A vandal uploaded several shock images and added them to an unprotected template that was used on the main page. The result was that the entire page was covered by the images for about nine minutes before they were located and deleted.)--Azer Red Si? 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A simpler alternative

Rather than requesting a bot with sysop access on meta, it would be easier to request the developers to make sure that only "autoconfirmed" users can upload images, just like only "autoconfirmed" users can move pages. But then, it'd help if you'd first show evidence that this is actually a big problem. >Radiant< 14:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Read my above comments. I have pointed out a particular incident in which the main page was covered in shock images for about nine minutes as a result of this sort of vandalism.--Azer Red Si? 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)