Feature Suggestion: Adding a new "Notice" textfield to artist entries to deal with AI/repost accounts.

Context

This is a continuation of topic #25985 and topic #30408 where we've talked about ways of dealing with this.
Some examples were using an implication to a artist warning tag and qualifiers to mark artist entries.
While the intention behind these proposals was fine, many were either clunky to implement or required lots of maintenance through approvals, perhaps even both.
The biggest issue were edge cases with artists switching to AI, or AI-prompters becoming full-fledged artists.

The recent change where the upload page got those special notifications to deal with bad source uploads and pixel-perfect duplicates gave me the idea to tackle this problem in a different way.
The power of Danbooru is the immense collection of data that we have collected about artists, but most of it is buried deep in the Wiki/Forum which is pretty much invisible for someone going through the upload process.
Instead of trying to automate it using existing tech, why not first work on providing this information to the uploader as seamless as possible?
The uploader can then decide for themselves how to process that information.

How would it work?

Using shark lj as an example:
First, an artist entry would get a new "Notice" (name pending) textfield that could contain a short text message with a maximum of (for example) 140 characters.

New "Notice" textfield on Artist page

Then, when an uploader wants to upload an image from a source linked to that artist, the Notice text would be shown on the upload page. If an artist entry has no Notice text, nothing would be shown.

Yellow Notice warning above the tabs.

Note: This is just a mock-up. I know that screen real estate on the Upload page is very precious. If you have a better feel for UX, please do share your opinions!

Advantages

Note that the Notice text could be pretty much anything. So this wouldn't just be used to give warnings about AI, but could also help people when dealing with other types of accounts:

• Known AI uploader. Do not upload. forum #438778
• This is a repost account. Check for a proper source.
• This is the account of a commissioner. Look for the correct artist name in the replies.
• Artist switched to AI after May 2025. Doublecheck post timestamp. forum #426434
• All posts of this artist should be tagged as AI-assisted.
• Posts uncensored works on their Twitter.

Why not just use the artist's Wiki page?

We already do, but we use the an artist's wiki page to keep track of other things as well. As mentioned in help:artists:

A wiki can exist for an artist, but must be created from the new Wiki page. This is typically only reserved for important details such as requests not to merge with any alt artist entries, or if the entry is for a commissioner/reposter of some kind. Wikis for artists should not contain any of the URLs associated, to avoid any redundancy. Adding too many personal details should also be avoided.

If the artist has any named original characters, you may also list those characters on the wiki.

This would then require some kind of setting wether or not to show the wiki page, and dumping the entire wiki page of an artist on the upload page by default would be absolutely terrible.
I did consider adding the Notice field to wiki pages, but I do not know how that would affect non-artist wiki pages. If you have a more technical view, please do share your opinions.

There is also a second reason why storing the Notice seperately would be better:

Integration

For people messing with Userscripts or even automation, adding a seperate field would make doing a check on Artist tags really easy.
All they need to do is check if the Notice field is empty. If not, they can halt. No need to parse the contents of a wiki page.

In the case of the official Translate Pixiv Tags Danbooru userscript, it could add a mark to artists, strikethrough the text, different color. The world is your oyster.

❌-mark added to artist's name when using Translate Pixiv Tags

Better control and documentation

Changes to the Notice field would be tracked like we currently do with changes to the other fields.
For heavy warnings like "Do not post" we could make it a recommendation/requirement to add a link to the corresponding forum post where the decision was made.
If more oversight is needed the Notice field could be locked so only Builder+ users could edit it.
Change requests could then be done through a dedicated forum thread.

Thoughts?

I really, really like this idea, and I think it would be a much more elegant solution compared to having to make a wiki page for the artist entry, which is something that requires you to go somewhat out of your way - having this notice option on the artist entry edit page instead is much more intuitive and would likely be seen more (since DB users notoriously like to not read wikis).

Like you said, there's a lot of other potential situations that could be useful in this case, such as making notices for official accounts that are usually associated with a single artist but may have guest art (this one might not work as well though if the artist has other links... it was just an idea that came to my head), notices for group accounts (Lemoncremestudios comes to mind, they're a two-person doujin circle whose works get tagged with the circle entry and the specific artist if known), notices about VTuber accounts who may be both artists and frequent second-party sources, etc etc.

I do think the X mark on TPT is a bad idea if the notice field is used for things besides AI, though - ⚠️ might be a better choice.

I think restricting them to Builder+ is a good idea as well, because there are some recurring users who are very jumpy about accusing artists of using AI.

I'm not tech-savvy enough to give the sort of constructive feedback I think you need (I don't use userscripts for crying out loud!), but I really really really like this idea.

It dodges all the problems with our past failed proposals perfectly, and is flexible enough that it can not only account for edge cases, but can also be used for, say, repost accounts for example. And since we already got sourceless warnings now, I think this is both a logical and great next step.

I too agree Builder+ is a reasonable restriction to editing the field. I do not trust any of the members in the AI check thread to use this responsibly lol.

Given that builders routinely cannot tell whether things are AI or not and the accusations that already get incorrectly slung around in flags and the AI check threads, I don't think this field would work even being restricted to builder+ accounts. Maybe if it was only doable through BURs so that they can be vetted more heavily, but we don't have any BURs that work like that yet.

I think this is a good idea. The amount of times I have to clear out second-party source artist tags is annoying (i.e prolific commissioners), and this can definitely help with that.

It should be restricted editing wise, but I think having it done through BUR is… well, stoopid? I imagine the best case scenario is de facto policy of including some kind of proof (such as linking to a forum post or asset) behind the accusation, or having a dedicated thread regarding "hey X user put this notice on Y artist page is it based or cringe", and hopefully keep reckless misuse to a minimum. odds are not zero that people will try and upload things with notices regardless even if the notice says "don't upload this it won't be approved". you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it read

I think people potentially misusing the notice is going to be the biggest drawback to the proposal. But that was true of all the other proposals (just not the most glaring), and I at least can trust the average builder to cooperate moreso than the average member. Keyword: cooperate, not misuse. I definitely don't trust most users period to tell, myself included.

I think having some kind of system in place to defend against misuse will be absolutely necessary however, due to the point Talulah mentioned above. I personally think Ylimegirl's thread proposal for debate is going to be the one most likely to work out, though I do think the ability to vote on who gets what notice would be the one I think would be most controlled (alas, the one most complicated to implement).

If it's not mandatory to be done through the forums, people will misuse it, and it will go unnoticed. This happens all the time with other aspects of the site. Builders manually nuke tags, rename artists, add stupid things to wiki pages, etc, and, despite having logs of all of those changes, they often go missed anyway, because nobody is looking at every single post version or wiki page version that gets created. Unlike those ones, however, there is a much greater risk in allowing this. The last thing we want is some artist erroneously labelled as an AI user or reposter when they are not (which already happens in wikis, but making it more in-your-face by having it in the artist page would just make it worse).

Confetto said in forum #439525:

I do think the X mark on TPT is a bad idea if the notice field is used for things besides AI, though - ⚠️ might be a better choice.

Good point.
Not only would it be less judgmental than the ❌, the yellow color would also be more visible when paired with the red artist text.

⚠-mark added to artist's name when using Translate Pixiv Tags

Regarding control, having some form of check over this before a Notice is added is a good point as well.

Adding a new BUR system would be a bit overkill, not to mention hard to implement (I assume) so perhaps it could be done like how we currently handle things in Paid Reward Ban Request Thread and Image Replacement Request Thread and limit control of this field to Approver+ or perhaps even Moderator+.

Discussion could be done wherever (Discord/Comments/Forum) and a formal request would then be done in a dedicated Notice Thread, perhaps even following a template posted in the OP, where someone posts an artist name, proof, and proposed Notice text.

Artist:
shark lj

Notice:

AI-generated content. Do not upload.

Reasoning:

• Artist profile on Twitter mentions AI

• Discord: https://discord.com/channels/310432830138089472/710192137878241372/1494728324797300837
• Forum: forum #1234567

An Approver+ or Moderator+ user would then check the proof, and when there are no objections add the Notice to the field with a forum #xxxxxx link that goes back to this above post for future reference:

• AI-generated content. Do not upload. forum #439625

GabrielWB said in forum #439625:

Adding a new BUR system would be a bit overkill, not to mention hard to implement (I assume)

Actually the reason I mentioned it to begin with was because there were discussions recently of extending BURs to include things like replacing posts and uploading videos longer than 140 seconds, so we'd probably want to do some sort of refactoring for that anyway. Presumably thereafter it would be simple to have a new BUR for this.

Limiting it to moderators could work given we got a new mod recently, though I worry it would end up like the aforementioned replacements and long video upload thread, where eventually they just stop being checked at all, if the one mod who bothers burns out or has other chores. Ideally we'd be able to trust approvers, but we couldn't trust them with post replacements and still can't trust them with parenting, so...

Also, regarding

GabrielWB said in forum #439522:

Yellow Notice warning above the tabs.

Note: This is just a mock-up. I know that screen real estate on the Upload page is very precious. If you have a better feel for UX, please do share your opinions!

IIRC evazion mentioned before he doesn't like things shifting the tag box downward, which is why current warnings are below it. I was looking for the reference but I think it might have been on GitHub which seems to be down right now.