Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.99.150.12 (talk) at 08:00, 7 December 2008 (→‎Workaround). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Brief overview

On 5 December 2008, it was noticed that access to Wikipedia from the United Kingdom was being routed through a small number of "transparent" proxies, and that access to an article (Virgin Killer) and image (Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg) which appeared on that article were being blocked completely to people using those proxies.

Affected IP Addresses

Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses

OK, so this is a partial continuation ofa thread above. Can someone with technical skills please explain what is going on at [the above] IP addresses? Both addresses seem to be a source of continuous vandalism when unblocked, and then as soon as they are blocked, a stream of near continuous requests from apparently unrelated people shows up demanding unblock. The first appears to be registered Be/O2/Telefonica and is apparently affecting customers in London, and the secons appears to be registered to Virgin Media and is likewise reportedly affecting many active British users. Can anyone explain WTF is happening? I have never seen this sort of problem before? Are we being had by a troll or group of trolls who are trying to fool us, or is this a genuine technical problem? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of User:89.167.221.3, but not of the other ip address. I have released my earlier block an hour early as a result. I haven't got the technical knowledge to be able to offer the solution. I'm surprised that very few people are getting involved with this discussion; I'll mention it at ANI and ask for some more input. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a technical problem. Both addresses affect users nationwide -- Gurch (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:16569 -- Gurch (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the unblock earlier when I blocked 89.167.221.3 and forgot to ask the previous admin what the issue was - totally my fault and obviously any unblock is totally fine. Apologies. Pedro :  Chat  15:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Pedro, I've unblocked the address. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider cross-posting at WP:VPT. -- Banjeboi 15:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is very annoying that some considerable time after this issue was brought to admins' attention, that editors in good standing are still being caught by this. DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we anon block the IP with account creation enabled, that would unfortunately prevent anons from editing, but disable the autoblock. -- lucasbfr talk 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that won't do any good - they ahve already maxed out on the number of accounts they can create in 24 hours (see a couple of threads up from here). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2008 (
Yeah but that would stop newer autoblock from being created. I drafted a block template at User:Lucasbfr/UKBlock. -- lucasbfr talk 16:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of the mass blocking. I suggest that for the time being (at least until the issue is resolved) as many people as possible monitor the edits from these addresses, and revert the bad edits. To save time, no need to drop warning notices (that would be pointless anyway). I know it's a balls-aching task, but no one ever said being an admin was easy! I'm up for it - just got to nip out and oick my car up from the garage before it shuts. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is more the tons of users that are now blocked when we block a vandal account :) -- lucasbfr talk 16:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notice directed at admins to both of the IP's talk pages. One of the first things I do when I remove an autoblock is look at the talk page of the IP address, so perhaps having a note there will save time when this happens again. J.delanoygabsadds 16:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you block them give them a link to http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/ where they can request an account be created for them. That should solve the soft block problem. Prodego talk 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The IP continued to vandalize with this edit. This is quite a pickle...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets out of hand, just block it anon-only and allow account creation. J.delanoygabsadds 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And do what Prodego said. J.delanoygabsadds 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I will do so with the blessing of this thread.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing account creation doesn't help, the IPs already reached their six-attempt limit and there's no way to reverse that -- Gurch (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the ACC does not work for IP addresses currently blocked on Wikipedia. Users should be directed to email accounts-enwiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org to request an account. 4I7.4I7 17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By my reckoning, the number of people affected is likely to be in six figures, so I would respectfully suggest that further blocks might not be a net positive, particularly as account creation is not possible. Brilliantine (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I agree. I've taken to semi-protecting pages which get repeated vandalism. The Danny Forster article kept geting someone posting a mobile number. I've deleted those edits and semi-protected the page. Back to the User Contribution page.... StephenBuxton (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I note the Virgin one appears to be currently blocked (just for info). Brilliantine (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, That was done by Persian Poet Girl (see above). I must admit that I disagree with the block, but I'm not getting into a wheel war situation. I think though there should be a note on the IP talk page letting them know how they can request an unblock. I'll look into it. StephenBuxton (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of you Brits: see comment 1 here: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16569 Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done -- Gurch (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Looks like Brion has taken up the issue at Bugzilla. Hopefully we can get this problem resolved, as NEITHER of the outcomes (allowing rampant vandalism from these IPs or blocking millions of quality users) we have availible seems to be working right now. And for the record, I liked my title better (Island of Great Britain reduced to 2 IP addresses. Chaos Ensues.) to be much more attention grabbing. Whoever changed it to this bland title is a buzzkill :( --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to keep information on the issue accurate both to help with finding the problem and to avoid confusing affected users. I changed the title as it falsely suggested that (a) the whole of the UK was affected and (b) the situation could be described as 'chaos' -- Gurch (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also changed the email in the makeshift block template from the unblock-en email to the ACC email recommended by 4I7.4I7. It would be confusing to direct the users to two different places :S...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm going to be a pain and say that all requests sent to the ACC email are usually redirected to the unblock-en-l email address or the interface. It was decided a number of weeks ago that the email address accounts-en-l was to be used for internal discussion only. Sorry folks. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, don't worry about that, I've notified the ACC team to handle them. We should be OK. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of the request backlog and added a box to both IPs with link to account request page rather than our internal mailing list. Thank you to whoever created the note to admins, it was an easy tweak to change it to suit ACC. --Terrillja talk 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to Virgin Media. Hopefully, they will be able to shed some light on this. J.delanoygabsadds 17:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There could be another problem with another IP address from the UK ISP TalkTalk, though I'd appreciate someone else looking at it in case I am mistaken:

What should be done? There are some messages on my talk page about this here as well as the ip address' talk page.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the devs can solve bugzilla:16569 soon. Unless the vandalism gets severely out of hand, it's best to avoid blocking as much as possible, Spellcast (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily Talk Talk is slow enough that very few people will even notice if we're lucky. (joke) Brilliantine (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These problems are not going to go away until the world moves to IPv6, which is enabled by default on Windows Vista, Mac OS X, and Linux alike, but not yet supported in MediaWiki enabled on Wikipedia. In any case, I recommend softblocking with account creation disabled and placing a prominent link to http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/ on the IPs' talk pages. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with IPv6 or non-use thereof. Each of these IP addresses is a transparent proxy, not a NAT. krimpet✽ 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. That does present a problem...the secure server workaround is probably the best option then, even if sone of the ISPs disable that too. Hooray for lack of network neutrality... —Remember the dot (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ACC Tool is currently designed to reject any request made by an IP Address blocked on enwiki, meaning the acc link will be useless if one of those IPs get softblocked. I have committed a fix to allow IPs to request an account if their block has account creation enabled in r1847, but someone will need to sync the tool with that repository before the change will take effect. FunPika 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears there may be an additional problem here too, possibly related to this: 212.134.155.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Xclamation point 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is where UK users of certain ISPs (at least UK Online) get proxied trough when a site has been flagged by the UK Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk At least, i think so, I googled a bit for the IP and found the following postings [1] [2](BIG). It seems wikipedia got flagged for childpornography. The other IP addresses might be the filters of other ISPs. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's not true. You'd think they'd at least notify the Wikimedia Foundation of such an action -- Gurch (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the FAQ "Are site ‘owners’ notified that they have been added to this list?
We do not notify site owners that their websites are on our list."[3]. The list's very limited distribution probably gives them some level of protection against libel cases. suggest confirming what is going on before takeing further action.Geni 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workaround

I am affected by this problem, but not if I use the secure server under [4]. Should we put a prominent notice with this workaround on the talk pages of the affected IPs, or could that cause problems for the secure server? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go ahead. We can always take it off if the secure server slows down to a crawl or something. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It already is that slow :D  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noted the workaround on User talk:62.30.249.131 (the Virgin Media proxy). If the servers don't slow down and nobody complains that it doesn't work, someone should notify the other talk pages as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secure server has been blocked by Opal telecommunications aperantly, it just refuses connections. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the IPs which this workaround works for, could it be mentioned on the you have been banned special template, ideally with a link to take users straight to the page they were about to edit (on the secure server)?--77.99.150.12 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A greasemonkey script to switch to ssh for edits & a compiled version for those without greasemonkeys. Its very basic so should work with any browser that allows user javascript (e.g opera).--77.99.150.12 (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions that need answers

  1. Are other wikipedia languages affected?

Yes, if this affect this wiki, it will affect other wikis because they will use the same ip addresses. This is a global issue. Might want to see the stewards so they don't global block. Techman224Talk 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it affects other wikis, the news report says it affects the english wikipedia, but hasn't stated that other wikis are affected. Techman224Talk 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Are other wikimedia foundations sites affected ?
See above. Techman224Talk 00:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Are images still loading ?

If affected people could answer these questions, that might be very helpful if we want to look into this further. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Yes (no reason why they wouldn't be, this problem has nothing to do with images)
-- Gurch (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. (It might have been that they blocked upload.wikimedia.org, that's why i asked the image loading question) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No (Although I wonder if this is just to do with the small number of users on welsh wikipedia?
  2. Yes
  3. Curiously though, all the images load fine apart from the top 'Wikipedia' image on the [5] page --62.30.249.131 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, 'No'? I can see two edits in the Welsh Wikipedia's recent changes that use 62.30.249.131, not whatever the user's real IP address is -- Gurch (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of en:Special:Mypage, meta:Special:Mypage, commons:Special:Mypage, wikibooks:Special:Mypage, wikiversity:Special:Mypage, wiktionary:Special:Mypage, wikiquote:Special:Mypage, wikispecies:Special:Mypage, wikinews:Special:Mypage, wikisource:Special:Mypage and even mw:Special:Mypage show 89.167.221.3 for me, which does not match my real IP shown at http://leuksman.com/headers.php. Only wmf:Special:Mypage works normally that I can find. So though traffic goes through the proxy on most Wikimedia sites it seems, only the English Virgin Killer article and image description page is affected. fi:Virgin Killer, ka:Virgin Killer (ალბომი), uk:Virgin Killer and their image description pages for that image work. --89.167.221.3 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update but not an update

I've sent some updated information to the XFF project email, but haven't received a response yet. they have the first two AN (or ANI) posts linked, but I would prefer if someone else sent them an email in case mine is ignored or caught in a spam filter. I'll post here when some response comes up. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a fourth IP to the list. See 212.159.3.234‎ (talk · contribs). The recent unblock request seems to indicate this IP is part of the set... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They all seem to be in the UK. Very odd. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. It looks like some internet watchdog organization has flagged Wikipedia as a child porn site, which requires (by law) UK-based ISPs to filter access through transparent proxies. Thus, from Wikipedia's point of view, it appears that every British ISP is now a single IP address. Bugzilla is working on this, but it seems to be a VERY serious problem... Chaos is ensueing, apparently afterall. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. That would do it. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'every single British IP'. I've tried editing/posting from my BT IP address and I have no problems. I can view the Virgin Killer article also. THE GROOVE 19:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a WHOIS and pasted the now-standard notices to the talk page of that IP address. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a friend's house, with Demon Internet. Their connections to WP are also being filtered, but through Demon's own server - a far more sensible thing than outsourcing it (even if still daft in the first place). Nevertheless, do people want to add 193.195.3.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the list? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 10:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added. the wub "?!" 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important issue

Isn't the issue of Wikipedia possibly containing child pornography more worrying? I'm assuming it was a vandalism edit, but what if it wasn't? \ / (⁂) 09:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About time someone asked this question. Far more important than whether people can edit from IPs or register accounts in my view. Can we have a statement of what exactly is being done about this? Poltair (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if the complaint is about something like the lead image in Lolicon, or one of the images of Nudity#Nudity and children. Actual child pornography does get uploaded occasionally (I'm aware of a dozen instances in the past four years), but it's deleted within minutes, and the uploader banned. --Carnildo (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While we shouldn't be embarking on a wild goose chase for the image, Carnildo has a point. this image does have somewhat explicit images on the spine of the DVD's/Books. \ / (⁂) 09:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what the images you link to are, as I'm not prepared to look. I know that for sometime I haven't allowed my young children to use Wikipedia because of the grubby images that are presented here as educational under the rallying cry that Wikipedia is not censored. It seems likely that there is a serious issue here that ought not be brushed aside. Poltair (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing on those pages is illegal under UK law as it current stands. There is content on wikipedia that I would expect to start hitting issues (although not actualy by letter of the law illegality) within the next few years. I am not aware of any content on wikipedia (with the posible exception of deleted images) that would cause issues with UK law as it currently stands.Geni 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the image most likely to cause you problems is the one in Virgin Killer.Geni 10:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to collate some guidance on this and links to past discussions at Wikipedia:Image content guidelines. One of the main points I made there was that we rely heavily on Commons to get the image content balance right. I'm still not clear what would happen if an image was kept on Commons, but there was consensus on Wikipedia not to use it. The links to past discussions are on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important sure, but we need to KNOW, otherwise we will never be able to fix the problem. It would be very good if customers of the affected ISPs could send emails to the abuse@addresses listed in the whois information of these IP addresses. Or even better, if someone could make a call to one of the ISPs.

  1. What is going on? Why is wikipedia transparently proxied trough the above IP addresses.
  2. Is Wikipedia flagged by a watchdog organisation ?
  3. What list has flagged Wikipedia
  4. For what reason were we flagged (or how can we find out)
  5. How do we get off the list. Who should be contacted.

Wikipedia can't do much about this issue, and for legal reasons probably shouldn't attempt to circumvent such a system at this time. That makes it an issue for the UK wikimedians. If one of you would like to do this, then I advice you to contact the foundation first. Any email should probably be CC'ed to Mike Godwin (legal counsel). Please be sensible in all your actions and words. If you are not in contact with the foundation, i would at the very least advise you to discuss any email text to be sent here first. We don't want to turn this into one of those wildly misquoted mediastorms :D. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Mike Godwin to draw his attention to this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Godwin has read this thread, and has emailed me to say
"Wikimedia Foundation hasn't been notified of any attempt to block our content as a result of anything having to do with Internet Watch.
My suggestion is that you contact UK editors generally to determine whether this is nonetheless the case and, if so, to recommend a course of action."
DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that we have no legal way of aquireing the answer to that question. The internet watch foundation will not admit to an item being on it's list.Geni 13:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
incitement to racial hated. Criminal obscenity are other potential issues. Their phone number is +44 (0) 1223 237 700 but of course that is only usefull during office hours.Geni 13:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative explanation would be that all major UK providers got directions from a court to record all Wikipedia related traffic, e.g. in connection with harassment or a government leak. Most providers would likely use the same technical methods as for the IWF list. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. We would likely have heard about that. We also have no evidence of tiscali being affected.Geni 13:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm operating off Tiscali, and if anyone wants to checkuser me to double check I'm working off a standard IP, they are welcome to GTD 14:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely down to the UK's bullshit ISP censorship. I am currently connected to Wikipedia via the shared 62.30.249.131 IP address, this is a proxy as my router shows that it is not my actual IP. I can confirm that I cannot access the Virgin Killer page at all, nor can I access Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg.

This is the first I've come across UK wide internet censorship, and I'm shocked. I had no idea until now that like China, we too have built a great firewall - only we keep quiet about ours. I can still access the pages from Wikipedia's https login. This is an absolute farce, I guess I'll have to tip off The Register to start mouthing off about it. - hahnchen 15:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not UK wide. As suspected it isn't hitting Tiscali.Geni 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the following error message from Safari when clicking the Virgin Killer link above "Safari can’t open the page “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer”. The error was: “unknown error” (CFURLErrorDomain:302) Please choose Report Bugs to Apple from the Help menu, note the error number, and describe what you did before you saw this message." DuncanHill (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So IWF consider that to be an indecent photograph under UK law. Unfortunetly the defintion of indecet is rather hazy. The closest I can find is various posibilities with "depicting erotic posing" being the only one that ould possibly apply.Geni 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view (strictly my personal view) would agree with that assessment. Of course, I feel for the editors who are now on some "this IP address looks at child porn" list, but what can be done? GTD 15:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Virgin Media, the Virgin Killer image link simply displays the URL in a monospace font. A letter to IWF would probably be the best thing. Wikipedia is not censored and no-one else should censor it for us. A UK organisation should have no power over us anyway (being US-based). I'll contact the IWF now. An online petition of UK editors might be a good idea too. Dendodge TalkContribs 15:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we may or may not consider this excessive censorship does not mean we should sit back and accept the hosting of what some may consider child pornography on the servers. I know this argument isn't really for now, but let's not make this some ideological war over a few questionable images. GTD 16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the past debate here. The image has a fairly wide degree of distribution. If it was illegal under US or german law we would likely have heard about it. However it's status under UK law is more unclear.Geni 16:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed the organisation. Text of the email is available on request. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IWF are unlikely to respond with anything beyond the form "we do not comment on individual cases". We shouldn't as far as they are concerned have any idea what they are blocking. Indeed lets face it is only because of our size, site setup and a fair degree of luck that we do. The fact that we do know is unlikely to change their responce. The foundation will have to deal with this. Private individuals cannot.Geni 16:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This probably all needs to go to a sub page, no? GTD 16:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, yeah. And I did end my email with "Please contact me via email with your response or if you have any queries. Should I receive no such response, I shall find other media and continue to contact you regarding this issue until I receive an adequae response (whether it be one with which I agree or not)", so I'll just hound them until they respond. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<- No, please don't. Stop and think for a moment about the PR implications of a kid, in their own words, "hounding" an organization which is funded by most major UK ISPs and partners with the UK government. We have people that make the big bucks to do this instead; send your concerns to Jay (jwalsh@wikimedia.org) from now on. east718 // talk // email // 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dendodge, please listen to East718. There is no need for us to hound the IWF, let Wikimedia deal with it if it is deemed neccessary. Woody (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As yet, the Wikimedia Foundation seem to have failed to acknowledge that the problem even exists -- Gurch (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both Mr Wales (see his talk page) and Mike Godwin (see above and his talk page) are aware of the situation. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that both Virgin Killer and Image:Virgin Killer.jpg are both being censored by Be Unlimited -- Gurch (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accessing the page like this works just fine, however, and accessing the image directly from upload.wikimedia.org also works fine. Proof that censorship does not work -- Gurch (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that when logged out I end up on User talk:62.30.249.131, using Virgin Media in Cambridge. I'm not willing to check the Virgin Killer image though, given that my doing so will probably be logged. the wub "?!" 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coward-- Gurch (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image from Virgin Killer and listed Image:Virgin Killer.jpg for deletion -- Gurch (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why?Geni 17:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... do I really need to answer that question? Thanks to that image the entire project has been flagged as a child porn site and ISPs have instated measured that cripple our ability to deal with vandalism. That's more than enough of a reason. It's not even free content, after all... -- Gurch (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already had quite a selection of issues with UK law. One more is not significant.Geni 17:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other issues resulted in two pages being censored and the entire project proxied -- Gurch (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-Whilst I applaud Gurch for acting (thanks!), I have to partially agree with Geni. The problem with the IWF is that they are a self-appointed bunch of, er, people, who are known to interpret their self-imposed brief very widely. They are known to act without evidence or proper investigation, to threaten people who report child porn for visiting it in the first place and to attempt to censor the internet in the UK by blacklisting sites that have text they object to (no pictures), alledgedly including text critical of the IWF. Kowtowing to them will achieve nothing. But Gurch's motives are right. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Killer image up for deletion now

That Virgin Killer image is now up for deletion here. rootology (C)(T) 17:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Kite speedy closed it citing NOTCENSORED. the wub "?!" 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only this image, there might be a possible rationale for removing it. But as I pointed out in the close, if that image can be classed as child pornography, then there are probably a lot more that fit that bill. I don't want to start on such a slippery slope at IFD when this should be dealt with by the WMF. Black Kite 18:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't take it to DRV. We know what the outcome will be there. Wikipedia isn't censored. If this private web proxy group in the UK doesn't like that, it isn't our fault that they have their heads in their asses. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prehaps we should ge red of it and end the hastel.--Ernst de 2nd q.u. (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime

Should these addresses be added to MediaWiki:Blockiptext to alert admins to the situation? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I think they should. These are very sensitive IPs ATM - more so than Quatar, IMHO. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Haven't included the comcom instructions since that shouldn't be necessary, GDonato (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, tried to do it but got an edit conflict :) Are we sure we want to advise blocking anon-only though, I thought we were avoiding blocks altogether? the wub "?!" 17:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I came up with that based on the existing blocks: Personally, I would recommend block with anon only and account creation permitted. Not block is not an option with so many users it will become easy to lose track of vandalism, GDonato (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permitting account creation does nothing when the account creation attempt limit (6 per day) has already been hit. -- Gurch (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to say that. Does anyone here have access to the account creation request tool (http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/), and can it cope ok with the demand? If so, that would probably be the best recommendation, at least temporarily. The only issue is that it requires an email address to be given, and some people may not want to. the wub "?!" 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be able to handle it. I have it permanently open now so I can deal with the requests from the UK. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already sent notifications to the entire ACC team (that have access to the mailing list) alerting people to the issue, and preparing them for the expected floods. The tool has had over 17k requests since it was created, I think it's more than capable of handling it. The question is is the stable toolserver capable? I hope it is. Anyway, we've had backlogs in the hundreds before, so it's not a problem. Our team is a lot bigger now. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA law vs foreign law, again

So, is this UK web nanny service some government agency? Is this a case of foreign law conflicting with the United States law that governs the WMF, ala the recent Peter Tobin debacle? rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - actually, I think it's EU-related too - maybe a non-UK European could check it out to see if they're blocked too? Dendodge TalkContribs 17:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a part of EU legislation (yet). There's no problems viewing the article from Denmark. -- Wegge (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the bloody article: Internet Watch Foundation. They are a charitable organisation given funding from various sources including the ISPs, the UK Government and EU funding. Woody (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - so it's only EU funding - I get it. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Wikipedia is governed by US law, which forbids distributing sexually explicit photos of minors. As I understand it, this image violates US law and therefore had best be removed, regardless of anybody's opinion of the rights or wrongs of the situation. If there are doubts about this, I suggest consulting a lawyer. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this violated US law, don't you think our attorney, Mike Godwin, would have had it taken down? rootology (C)(T) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed Mike a short while ago, and he replied with the comment that the image does not violate US law. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that the image violates any (common law) country's laws. The problem is the hysteria that currently suggests that images of naked children == child porn. It doesn't, and courts have historically recognised that. In Belgium, our royal park in Brussels is filled with statuary of children, angels and nymphs with everything showing, and all about as erotic as dog vomit. But the UK's IWF isn't looking for eroticism, it's looking for images of underage children not wearing much and cares little for the actual context. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the legal status of the image cannot be certian without a court case it probably isn't illegal under US law. The case under UK law is unclear and would depend on how the courts viewed the pose.Geni 18:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

I suggest we close this. It's beyond our control, and we now know to exercise caution when dealing with those IP addresses. There's nothing more that can be done here, and we should leave this in the hands of the powers-that-be. Dendodge TalkContribs 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it open. The percentage of Wikipedia editors affected is very, very large and the issue is not resolved yet. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to keep it open in case other UK ISP's (i.e. Sky Broadband) follow suit. Just a FYI while trying to access the Virgin Killer page logged in via Virgin Media, I get a blank page and while logged out, I find myself blocked. D.M.N. (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Broadband is already included, since it uses Easynet's LLU network. I wish I'd seen this thread this morning; I spent one and a half hours on the phone to their technical support idiots. Out of the nine (!) people I spoke to, only one knew what a proxy was. FFS. Steve T • C 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you (teaching you to suck eggs here, I know, sorry) log out and get your IP address as WP sees it? We can then consider whether the block is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried that, Wikipedia sees my IP address as 62.30.249.131. DuncanHill (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also blocked when logged out - and none too happy about it. Has whoever blocked IP in the UK informed the Foundations and particularly its PR people? The media are just going to love this. "Wikipedia takes drastic steps to defend kiddie porn". Well you may uphold WP:NOTCENSORED at the expense of PR and associated funding.....Anyway, you'd best let the foundation know.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to assume that the image is universally considered as "kiddie porn". It isn't. It is certainly in very poor taste but it's also meant to be scandalous and, unsurprisingly, it was the center of a small scandal. With the likely exception of conservative media outlets, the headline will read "Wikipedia forced to scramble after IWF blacklisting" but that's not a PR disaster. Wikipedia is already known to be very active in its anti-censorship stance and if the Virgin Killer image is really the sole problem, the IWF will be the ones facing PR problems. They're given a lot of money to perform an important task but you can be sure that blackmailing Wikipedia is going to hurt their credibility with their non-activist funders. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed nothing of the sort, except that's how the media will spin this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which hasn't actually been the case so far. They seem pretty reasonable in recognizing the content (the german article even explains why the image is on the cover of the album), noting the blocking and moving on. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...How about "Prudish nanny organization told to stuff it after declaring a 20 year old album cover to be child pornography" or more like "No press coverage at all for event that wikipedia editors care a lot more about than anyone in the rest of the word does. In other news..."? Protonk (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the artistic and legal merits of the image (and for the record, I don't think it's "child porn" or even all that offensive), we should be aware of the ramifications of leaving this image up. It leaves the project open to accusations of "they're hosting child porn!", which is not the sort of publicity we want. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's far from the only image of a naked child we've got on Wikipedia or Commons. --Carnildo (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No more than Image:TrangBang.jpg leaves us open to that charge. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(re-indent) Yes it is, but these and other images do make us look a bit foolish sometimes. I've already had the "but doesn't that site have kiddie porn" discussion a few times when discussing Wikipedia with people in the real world. The images may not be illegal, but they might have a negative impact on the way we're seen in the wider world. For a lot of people, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't hold a lot of weight when images of naked children are the issue. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Whether or not WP:NOTCENSORED holds weight with people doesn't really matter - the point is that it's an official Wikipedia policy, and I'm not sure that's going to be easily changed. All sorts of kinds of images may make people view us in a negative light, in various parts of the world. Also as noted below, the image is on Amazon, and I don't see them worrying. Mdwh (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make is that waving a policy (which I agree with, incidentally) in the face of external criticism is not really going to go a long way towards improving our image to the general public. And when pictures of naked children are concerned, we ought to tread really carefully, because it's easy for someone to twist or misunderstand something, and suddenly a situation like this one begins. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I see no evidence that the general public have a negative opinion towards Wikipedia over this. It's the Internet Watch Foundation who have done this, who are an independent body that are not representatives of the public. There may likely be as many people who form a negative opinion over the IWF on this matter. Mdwh (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that this image makes us look foolish? As someone pointed out below, the bulk of the article is (rightly so) devoted to commentary and interpretation from reliable sources of the image. It would be foolish of us to have that article and then say "we don't want to show the image these folks are talking about". For that matter (not to be confrontational), can you think of an example where there is an image on wikipedia of a naked minor that does make us look foolish (or might)? Protonk (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, the image is or isn't a violation of the Sexual Offences Act 2003??--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows, because in 32 years, it's never been tested by a jury, who are the ultimate arbiters of indecency. I can't remember a single album cover that's ever been prosecuted for indecency in the UK. the nearest was Never Mind the Bollocks, which was text only, and that wasn't under child protection laws, and was acquitted anyway. Bizarre that it was Virgin Records run by Richard Branson, who defended the case, when now his Virgin Media are censoring us! --Rodhullandemu 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Virgin Killer

Should it be there? rootology (C)(T) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely it should be there. I find the cognative dissonance required to say "Someone has asked us to censor wikipedia, this goes beyond NOTCENSORED" baffling. We don't change content because people get upset by it. Somehow we seem to think that because this is the UK and not China, Sudan or Iran, this is ok. It isn't. We build an encylopedia. Nothing else. Protonk (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the risk of a number of editors, including minors, being put on the UK Sex Offenders Register is worth taking, however small, for the sake of retaining a non-free image? GTD 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to be:
  • a free encyclopedia
  • a resource accessible by everyone
We are not supposed to be:
  • a host for illegal content
This image, being also non-free, leads to the failure of all three of these things -- Gurch (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not illegal - or at least, no credible source has asserted that it is. DuncanHill (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not illegal under US or Florida law. It fits the NFCC and has been the subject of critical commentary and controversy. It belongs here. More to the point, the last DRV on it showed the community feels it belongs here. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should start filtering out articles critising Turkishness too, and block those counter-revolutionary upstarts from disrupting our harmonious society? - hahnchen 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I live in the UK. If I had that album in my music collection, would I be breaking the law? Presumably not. So I don't see that having the ability to access it on Wikipedia is any different. Yes, it's obviously an objectionable image, but it's not being used in a sexual context, it's being used to illustrate an actual album. Having said that, and having closed the IfD, since it's a fair-use image it is clearly disposable. But where do we go after that? There was a large discussion recently (which I can't find) about a user-uploaded photo of a group of nude cyclists which included a child. Would that need to be deleted as well? Black Kite 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they're worried about naked children, why not chase the child porn websites? Why go after Wikipedia? Because we're so big. They want to show that they have some authority. Let's not give in to the bullies - keep the image and continue with our lives. They'll get bored eventually. Just use the same principle as WP:DFTT Dendodge TalkContribs 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't give them too much credit for forethought. They probably just found an image with a naked girl on it and hit "filter". Protonk (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do chase child porn websites. They have gone after wikipedia because they recived a report and decided the image was a problem.Geni 19:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not chase Amazon or Ebay for selling child porn (in the form of that album)? Because we get more Google hits. They just want to mindlessly exercise their power and don't care who or what they affect. Dendodge TalkContribs 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They may not have been informed of either case. Remeber they haven't admited to the flagging and are unlikely to do so so power tripping is not a likely motive.Geni 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"May not have been informed" isn't very likely. They see it here, it's an album cover, they think "what websites sell albums?", they block Amazon, eBay et al. But they choose not to follow that train of thought. It's pretty unlikely that in all the billions of readers of Wikipedia, only 1 has found offence at this image, and not until now - if it's that bad, surely it would have been blocked earlier? (No need to respond, I won't be visiting this page again - I'll focus on the 'pedia). Dendodge TalkContribs 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely should stay. Personally, i find the movie The_Blue_Lagoon_(1980_film), more offensive material than this picture on an album cover. So I have no reason whatsoever to object to this albumcover on Wikipedia in that specific article. The image is legal in the US, Germany, and many other European countries. And I find it worrying that ISP censorship has come so far in the UK. If it ever gets this bad in the Netherlands, i'm gonna emigrate. And I wholeheartedly agree with User:Protonk. 'naked girl' -> 'enter' --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the image is actually on amazon.com. Why doesn't IWF go after amazon.com ? Xtremeways (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File a complaint with them, and they will. Whatever explanations are out there, the least compelling one is that the IWF chose wikipedia specifically. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of non-free images is irrelevant. The en.wiki has decided to allow the use of non-free images under certain conditions and even the editors who believe in a very strict interpretation of WP:NFCC will agree that this image fits all the necessary criteria for inclusion. Bottom line is that this is the UKIWF's mistake, not ours and it's not at all clear that this is the only image they object to. At some point, we need to stick to our guns. I know I won't get much support for the idea but I think the right thing to do is to just block the few British IPs remaining and refer any complaints to UKIWF. It's a ridiculous position on their part. Right now, this is a problem that we're trying to solve on the administrator's noticeboard but it would be easier to just alert British media because the UKIWF's position is untenable. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia should not bend over to prudish conservative activist groups over this and more than it should for Islamic fundamentalists who continuously demand the removal if images at the Muhammad article. We're here to provide a comprehensive, online encyclopedia open to all, not to make people feel happy and safe from things they don't like. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is nice to quote WP:NOTCENSORED, but we don't have a choice at the moment. Either that image gets censored, or the Wikimedia does. Muhammed and other articles DO NOT have any relevance - they haven't prompted the wrath of the IWF. \ / (⁂) 21:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, or any other nation blocked WMF access over Mohammed, would you support removing those religious images then? rootology (C)(T) 21:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are blocked in china for refusing to edit articles to the desires of the government there. Should we change that? I don't understand "it is only ok to not censor wikipedia unless there is some sort of consequence to that stance". This came up in the Peter Tobin issue. People seemed ok with saying wikipedia didn't censor content until the police came and asked us to censor content. Then that came undone. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it should stay. All that matters regarding legality is the law where the Wikipedia is hosted. Whether or not editors in other countries are at risk is no more relevant for this article than for any country - should we remove all sexual images, because they might be illegal in countries like Iran? Things will be far broader from January when the UK criminalises possession of "extreme" adult porn, are we going to remove any images that might fall under that too? Should we remove images of Muhammad because they might be illegal in Sudan? Were Wikipedia articles changed in response to the blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China?
(Also note that this image has not been shown to be child porn in the UK - that would require a court case - the problem is the IWF censors material it thinks may "potentially" be child porn.)
I say this as someone who lives in the UK, and is affected by the block. Don't change the way Wikipedia just because my country makes a mess of something.
As for being non-free, it seems to satisfy fair use, and that's a separate issue anyway. Mdwh (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for clarity

Guidelines for UK prosecutors are set out here; there is a five-level classification, of which Level 1 (the minimum) is "Level one - Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity". The problem is that prevailing law prohibits "indecent images of children", with no definition being offered for what is "indecent" - this is somewhat correct, as it leaves individual cases up to a jury. However, it does leave simple nudity open to interpretation of indecency. A jury in Bristol may well come to a different conclusion from a jury in Manchester, and that is the problem; those who police these images do so on a "least common denominator" basis. There are numerous cases here of seizure of simple nudity on that basis, which later come to nothing, but leave behind a climate of fear. I suggest that is not a climate we should support. To coin a phrase, "if it saves one child then we have created a police state for the sake of one child". --Rodhullandemu 22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n:UK ISPs erect 'Great Firewall of Britain' to censor Wikipedia

Join the fun, document your findings on the talk page. --Brian McNeil /talk 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because a sensionalist wikinews article is what we really really need right now alonge with a hole in the head.Geni 21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sensationalist?? I had to use https://secure to add this comment. The UK is quickly dropping down the list of free countries - last month an opposition MP was arrested for making public inconvenient government blunders, and now this. The country should be renamed to The United People's Republic of Britain. 86.9.126.174 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would involve getting rid of the monarchy.Geni 00:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The opposition MP was arrested for inducing a civil servant to illegally reveal state secrets Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alerting ORG and WMUK lists

I've emailed the Open Rights Group and wikimediauk-l lists about this, to gather data on precisely what is and isn't happening. The ORG list hasn't got an archive, but of course wikimediauk-l does - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block settings

In order to make it simpler for everyone (some the blocks reasons and durations did not match), I have changed the block settings of all these IPs after a quick brain check:

  • Settings: anon only, ACC enabled (not that it will do much good), talk page edit enabled
  • Duration: until 0:00 8 December (Tuesday), the situation being unlikely to change before that
  • Reason: {{User:Lucasbfr/UKBlock}}:

User:Lucasbfr/UKBlock

-- lucasbfr talk 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't still be block from editing due to them being proxies? — Dispenser 20:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only open proxies are blocked in such a manner, Dispenser. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 20:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have some precedent from flawed AOL proxy software. — Dispenser 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My normal IP showed up in the Leuksman header PHP file, but surprisingly when I was editing my own wiki, it showed my regular IP. I assume this is due to my MediaWiki being version 1.13, and yours being the latest SVN build. Over at my wiki, go to Special:Mytalk and see what your IP is: it may not be the 62.30.* one that you get editing here, unless I'm wrong. AC --Sunstar NW XP (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint, but this is a deliberate filtering from your ISP :) There's not much we can do beside complain. -- lucasbfr talk 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word is out

First news on this is out in the world now zdnet.co.uk --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover - article in The Register -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw

to echo what I've mentioned at Wikipedia Review - I hope we can react sensibly to this news, and not escalate things into false 'censorship' vs. 'naked children' polarity. I hope everyone can remain calm and allow that it really is probably quite sensible to have a discussion about how people might react to the imagery at the virgin killer article, and elsewhere. This wiki-idiot has been working a bit on a proposal about Wikipedia:Sexual content, which is loosely related to this issue, and maybe it would be both a good idea, and look like a good idea for this discussion to happen.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand the call for reasonable discussion, but I don't see how it is opposed to just taking the standard stance we take toward censorship. We have a stnading position on how we treat questions of "concerns" over portrayals of facts and images. We politely acknowledge them, then note that our content will remain unchanged. This is a case where wikipedia summarizes controversy and criticism of a notable image, not where we are posting something for the sake of posting it. Further, this is just an internet blacklisting site. They responded to an anonymous request to flag a website and have done so summarily. That should not be conflated with community "concern" about something. I know where you are coming from and I don't want to respond just to be disputatious (that's a word!), but I figured I'd chime in. Protonk (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say one thing. That image was the cover of a record album that was released in 1976. That was 32 years ago. It's been continuously available for purchase since then. And in the intervening 32 years NO ONE has been prosecuted, charged, arraigned, accused or indicted in any court anywhere ever for having anything to do with child pornography because of the production, distribution, possession or use of that album cover. Not in the US. Not in the UK. Not in Europe. Nowhere. It is plainly, obviously, beyond any semblance of reason and without question a load of idiotic nonsense to suggest that there is anything illegal about that image. Do the folks who think it's child pornography honestly believe that they can see something in that image that no court or law enforcement agency ANYWHERE has seen in 32 years? Of all the issues and all the controversies I've seen on Wikipedia, by far the greatest volume of moronic commentary has been produced regarding this image. The only issue worth discussing here is how to get the nanny-staters in the UK to come to their senses. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
heh - see my comments about polarity, steven :-) I don't think it's helpful to split into two angry camps. You're spot on about the facts of the image status though, of course. Here's a 'not safe for work' example though of an image of a woman in a sexual context, where we have no idea how old she is at all. Presumably were she a minor, that image would be illegal, and currently we take it on faith from a contributor who's uploaded nothing else, that the image is both licensed appropriately, and legal. There's thin ice around, and hopefully we can get together and come up with a good path through it..... best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Here's one of a fully nude minor, easily younger than the girl on the album cover. I should tell the IWF about that one. I see the point about sexual images without any encyclopedic purpose (seriously, do we need the picture to visualize autofellatio?). I think that too many of our sexuality related articles play host to needless uploaded self-nudes. But we should separate that from cases where we host a non-free image because it has been the subject of criticism or commentary. And I also think we don't help anything by getting into a panic over nudes (not saying you are, fo course) :) Protonk (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
totally agree about avoiding panic, Pro :-) (and don't think you should bother telling the IWF about that image - hopefully no-one is suggesting it's problematic?!) - your input at Wikipedia:Sexual content would be marvellous :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I I was mostly being impish when I suggested telling them about it. Though I'm sure if I clicked through the "notification of outrage" form (or whatever), they would dutifully mark it as child pornography. I'll take a look at the essay, thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I highly doubt they would mark the infamous Kim Phuc Phan Thi as child pornography. While I don't believe the Virgin Killers image is or should be consideredchild pornography, there is a vast difference between the two and I'm surprised that you don't understand that. Perhaps it'll help if you consider the imagehas been controversial since it was released whereas the infamous photo has not (or at least not for the same reasons) Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look like I don't understand that? Jeez. I'm sorry. I thought they were the same thing. Of COURSE they are different. One is a poorly conceived album cover for a metal band from the 1970s. The other is an iconic image of pain, suffering and disclocation that won the pulizter prize. No. They aren't the same. But both have naked pre-pubescent girls in them in relatively full frontal nudity and neither are child pornography by any definition that would be upheld in a court in either England or the United States. So, the cover of Virgin Killers, a subject of critical commentary and on this earth for 32 years was flagged on an anonymous tip line as child pornography by some prude. They proceeded, like blacklisting sites, to give it a cursory once over and block it. Because there is no way they would have done so if they were thinking about it at all. This has nothing to do with the "controversy" surrounding the album cover. This was someone seeing an image that they deemed offensive and an entire nation being forced to view content based on that decision. My point was that from the standpoint of the net-nanny/blacklist site, there isn't likely to be a difference between an incredibly culturally significant image and an image of minor cultural significance. Consequently, it behooves us to discuss this for what it is and providing a like image that this heavy handed effort would also attempt to censor does just that. I wasn't, in fact, confused between the two. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent>I'd like to note that while I, like most other sane people, have a strong dislike of child pornography, this isn't child porn. First off, there is a difference between porn and nudity. Pornography involves sexuality. As others have mentioned, are we going to ban all of those famous Christian paintings of cherubs? Cause that's child nudity.

Secondly, for those wanting to remove the image because they believe it to be unnecessary, the article is an academic discussion of the controversy surrounding the album image. Since it is a discussion about the controversy surrounding a still-legal image (as noted above, no one has ever been charged or prosecuted for making, selling, or purchasing that album), there is no reason why the image shouldn't be on the page. It isn't simple a gratuitous example of nudity or porn. Even the autofellatio image isn't excessive, unless you want to argue that the article itself is too taboo to be covered on Wikipedia. I've seen a few eyebrow raising and unnecessary images on Wikipedia and Commons, but these aren't in that category. Gopher65talk 03:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the government's own definition says this is not pornography. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really at all about a debate being needed on the subject, because that has been raging for a long, long time. And Wikipedia isn't the place for that, at any rate. It can docucument the debate, and can be reflective of the current moires of society that spin out from it. For example, the article on The IWF. The only issue is how to negotiate the removal of Wikipedia from the filter put in place by IWF, and how it happened in the first place. That's not something we can do at a grass roots level. Harmonica (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has Google been contacted?

When I google Wikipedia, IWF, and child (link), one result is removed from the search. Here is the Chilling Effects entry that the notice links to. Is this relevant to this discussion? Or is it just a coincidence? In any case, I'm going to watch V for Vendetta now. \ / (⁂) 04:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You pasted the first link twice. --NE2 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fixed. \ / (⁂) 05:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think google just removes links and de-indexes domains, right? So if the IWF had forwarded this to them and they acted on it, it would affect the whole project. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action&oldid=256383901"