Talk:Virgin Killer

Sockpuppet removals?

WikimediaMosaicCapture.png

Any chance the new users who keep replacing the image are the same person? Is a checkuser necessary? --Moni3 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the vandal admits to using sockpuppets. See the taunt over at User talk:Ves Seer threatening to do just that. No checkuser necessary for obvious cases. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Every case where the image in the infobox has been replaced by WikimediaMosaicCapture.png is the work of the same person using sockpuppet accounts. This means that even semi-protection is of limited use, and only full protection will stop this sort of nonsense. It is not ideal, but users who are not administrators can request an edit by using the editprotected template.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The better solution is to modify or enhance exactly what "semi-protection" means, and what is needed for a user to be able to edit such a page. Currently, this sock-puppet git makes about a dozen edits to some random user page, adding and removing sequential keyboard letters. Those edits are apparently enough to grant one's account the necessary rights to edit semi-protected pages. This is an obvious weakness in the system, but I am at the moment unsure of where to bring a discussion about altering this. I tried AN/I a month or so back, but it petered out. Suggestions? Tarc (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This case raises some interesting questions about Wikipedia's anti-vandalism measures. The current system can be exploited by a determined person, as this case shows. One possibility would be to fully protect an image without affecting the rest of the page, but this would require a change in Wikipedia's software.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This person will get bored and move on. No need to change how semi-protection works for this. Chillum 14:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, we have WP:LONG for a reason y'know. There are many, many cases of persistent, years-long vandalism that current mechanisms are unable to cope with. Dismissing this in a "they'll get bored" manner is a bit naive and not at all helpful in getting a resolution to this vandalism, as this person is deliberately gaming the system to bypass protection. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is now full-protected, after I requested it yesterday. The admin protected it with misgivings, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I have been around here for a long time. The vandal will get bored, just don't feed them. Until then if any consensus for change forms use {{Editprotected}} or just drop a message on my talk page and I or another admin can make the change. Chillum 00:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to be clever about it. Dump the infobox into a subpage, fully protect that and transclude it in here. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Could User:Mattbuck test it to show that it works? If the HTML of Virgin Killer can be edited, would it still be possible to remove the whole infobox?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole infobox could still be replaced. Chillum 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

CAN some JS be applied here to show nude content warning and on accepting OK then only image shows up, i know its possible but whether its in Wiki standards or not am not sure. Deepkamal 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOIMAGE is similar to this, but in line with Wikipedia policy, there are no disclaimers in articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the vandal known as Tile join (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He's been vandalising for at least three years now. His usual bit is to replace the Evolution page with the first chapter of Genesis, hence his sobriquet The Genesis Vandal. His edits are very bot-like, in fact, I wouldn't be suprised if it is a bot. He makes dozens of socks at a time, seasons them in the way mentioned above, and then strikes his targets with multiple hits. He's the reason the article was fully protected for several months at a time. He is on a Mission From God; he will not "get bored and go away." I figure there should be some sort of edit filter that can be created to stop him, but that would be beyond my abilities. Auntie E.

A minor point of interest is that from the time zone of the edits, I'm fairly sure that this person is British. He (guessing here) seems to have little better to do in the evenings than to make the same tedious points about the image in the article over and over again. Short of flagged revisions, this stunt would be hard to stop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Very easy to stop - indefinite full protection. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the admins would grant this, and our regular friend would see it as a victory. However, a period of full protection would not go amiss at the moment. I still think that flagged revisions are the best solution, as it removes the satisfaction of knowing that silly edits will go out directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

So I notice it is protected and stuff, it might be nice to have a thread up for discussing that since people can't edit it. Do you guys think it might sometime be changed to semi? I think people with accounts in good standing over a few years can be trusted. Tyciol (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a problem with semi-protection, as noted in the section above; vandal(s) have figured out how to game the system so that semi-protection is effectively neutralized. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is depressing that the article is fully protected again, but it is the only way to prevent the tiresome image switching stunt. Flagged revisions would prevent this, but the proposal is still at the discussion stage for the English language Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the issue I tried to bring up before was that what it means to be "semi-protected" is absolutely meaningless, but that was pooh-poohed by a now quite naive "This person will get bored and move on" sentiment. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to have a WP:CHECKUSER on the IP addresses being used for this stunt. It is unfair to have the page held to ransom in this way, although even a WP:CHECKUSER is no guarantee that the stunt would stop.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't hesitate to poke me when he comes back, I'm keeping tabs here and working on rangeblocking whenever possible. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like contributions came back as contributions, who is now indef blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A look at the page history shows that most edits since January have been nonsense by this "user". The current proposal at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions would stop this stunt, since semi-protection has its loopholes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Checkuser request made here. R. Baley (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Image filter 131

Special:AbuseFilter/131 was created to prevent people from moving/removing/replacing specific images in the Muhammad article. This filter has been working well. It also allows the article to go unprotected, allowing people to edit it, while surgically prtecting a tiny piece of it. See the discussion at Talk:Muhammad#Image Protection Filter.

Instead of protecting this article, we could unprotect it while using filter 131 to protect the placement of the controversial 'Virgin Killer' image. I asked the author of this filter about it, but he replied that this article already has such a filter. I'm not seeing anything but manual administrator interventions, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It was working fine for awhile, but now the idiot meat/sock-puppet movement that is bound and determined to protect us from naughty bits has resorted to other methods of vandalism, so now we're back to full protection. The current tactic is to take random infoboxes, from Diana to moose, from other articles and insert them into this one. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought the infoboxes were being replaced, not just added. I may be assuming too much, but I thought Filter 131 also protected against movement of an image within an article, so possibly the addition of an infobox above it would trigger the filter. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks useful to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Internet censorship" section

Most of the section seems irrelevant (or only remotely relevant) to this page. It is better suited to the requisite page on censorship/censorship of wikipedia with a link here as to what it refers to. I've removed some of the info from here as it pertains to wikipedia and the FBI, with only a reference to this site. (one can link Virgin killer from that site)

Also the wikipedia wikilink is WP:Overlink. People know wikipedia if they are on here.Lihaas (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant to this page as it is about both this page and the album artwork. The wikilink is appropriate, so long as it appears only once. Verbal chat 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Certain content on the section is, but other content regards the reaction between wikipedia and the body with a fringe interest here hence the link to the other page (and i presume the link to this page from there)

(please, dont revert the source while the discussion is ongoing, conesensus is not gained just yet. although we are makign good progress in civil debate)Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree that the section is irrelevant. It summarizes the December 2008 incident without going into too much detail, and gives a "main article" link to Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Since the controversy over the original 1976 album cover is one of the key features of the album's notability, Virgin Killer should cover it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a summary of the main article with a link and is about the recent reaction to the album. Also, please have a look at WP:BRD and get consensus for your changes if they are opposed. Thanks, Verbal chat 08:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not remove the picture? It's very offensive and I think it's illegal in many places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaimoconn (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the note at the top of this page: Important notice: Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that the Virgin Killer cover will not be removed. If you find this image offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display it. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. See the image talk page for the archived discussions. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A few things. First, to the best of my knowledge there has not been a court anywhere in the world that has made any ruling on this image so there has never been a determination that this image is illegal outside of personal opinions (which do not have legal authority). Also I think if there were any real legal issues regarding this image they would have resolved by by now since the album is over 35 years old. However, if you do have evidence that this image has been deemed illegal by a court of law fell free to present it. Also to reiterate the policy on not censoring content covers the offensive argument. Finally, another reason not to remove this image is the ironic fact that the original attempt to have the image taken down by the Internet watch Foundation actually made the image more notable than it was before. This made the image in question more relevant to the article and actually in the end strengthened the case for including the image in the article. In the end barring a court of law declaring this image to be illegal this is here to stay.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)