Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/2008 IWF action/Archive 4

"Potentially illegal"
Has anyone else noticed what a pathetic use of weasel words the phrase "potentially illegal" is? Either something is illegal or it is not. The Internet Watch Foundation is on legal quicksand here, yet this group of well-meaning amateurs is causing considerable disruption for up to 95% of people in the UK. If the IWF had tried its current self-serving stunt with a major media company, it would probably have been hit with a lawsuit by now. Fortunately for the IWF, Wikipedia is not litigious, but this situation should remain under review if Wikipedia's operations are disrupted over a long period of time.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy in charge sliped up in the channel 4 interview last night and went for flat out illegal.Geni 08:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * re. the "potential illegality": this commentary by a solicitor from Lawdit Solicitors ("Commercial law experts, Lawdit places particular emphasis on Escrow, Intellectual Property, e-commerce and internet law") suggests the  image should be "lampooned rather than banned" and "does not justify the intervention of the IWF".   Gwinva (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is pathetic. By saying it's "potentially illegal", the IWF are basically admitting that they don't really know, but censored it anyway because they felt like it. Given that the general Web-wide and World-wide availability of the image hasn't been curbed in the least, the level of chaos and disruption is entirely unjustified. I hope the IWF come to their senses. If not, I hope the WMF do take legal action. • Anakin (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "The head of the IWF is potentially a fabulous drag queen." (Though anyone who saw him on Channel 4 may feel otherwise.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * People do not go around saying things like "Have a potentially nice day". This situation comes about because the Internet Watch Foundation is a quango-like agency and has no power to issue legal rulings, which only a court can do. To be fair to the IWF (which is admittedly hard), the current system is tolerable for obviously illegal material on obscure websites whose owners would be hard or impossible to contact. Wikipedia is a large website and easy to contact, something which was not factored into the IWF decision to issue a block.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may have missed the point. The reason the IWF doesn't notify a website owner is because they only operate according to UK law. They've stated they do notify website owners when the owners are based in the UK but that they don't notify website owners when the owners are not located in the UK (since in that case they would have no idea if the material is illegal for the website owner to host). Indeed in this particular case all the evidence suggests that even if the UK Supreme court or EU Court of Human Rights (i.e. after all pssible appeals) were to find the image illegal in the UK, we would still host it. Therefore further illustrating it would have been fruitless for the IWF to contact us Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This was a highly unusual, even unique situation. Wikipedia is one of the world's top ten websites, not an obscure backstreet operation. It would have been both easy and polite for the IWF to contact Wikipedia before issuing the block. Instead, it was left to individual Wikipedia volunteers to find out that a block was occurring.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 07:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Review
Can't see that anyone else has already mentioned this but according to the guardian here the review by the IWF of their decision should be made at noon Tuesday. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be worth putting a date/time stamped message box on the project page, with a 'latest situation' type affair in it, even if the message is simply that nothing's changed yet, but we might know more at noon... --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is now gone noon and I haven't seen any change in the media. Has anyone else seen anything?  Gazi moff  14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IP template needs updating
There are some "editprotected" requests for UK ISPs' Transparent Proxies which could do with prompt action, please. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd do them, but ironically I am behind a work filtering system that disallows any page with "proxies" in the URL... Black Kite 13:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They've been done; but it would be good if one or two admins could keep watch on that template, for timeliness. (as an aside, it's somewhat ironic, not to say vexing, that over-strict protection means I can't edit a template which I recently created) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The title does not really apply, as they are not transparent (if they were, this would have been pretty much a non-event confined to those interested in the actual censorship, rather than sucked in by the massive fallout), more accurate to call them UK ISP IWF policy enforcement proxies. Ace of Risk (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of "Current issues" section
I think the section is quite good overall, but it would be much more credible if it didn't mention Article 10 ECHR. Like the First Amendment of the US Constitution it talks about what the state may or may not do, not what ISPs or organisations like IWF may or may not do. One could argue that the state has caused this situation, but I think that's not likely to be successful. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is intended to give some legal perspective on the current situation. The Internet Watch Foundation has saddled itself with the ludicrous phrase "potentially illegal" without giving any thought to whether the image actually is illegal, and as a result may be in breach of the right to freedom of expression which is guaranteed to all citizens of the European Union. It can also be argued that as a quango-like organization, the IWF is not fully separated from the state anyway, since a quick look around its website shows that it is a classic organization dependent on government handouts for its existence.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed some of the duplicate references to Art. 10, including all those under "technical issues". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work Andy. I was getting a bit concerned about the tone when i read the article this morning. Didn't have the time to handle it then, but it indeed started to get a bit too activism in tone. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet more evidence of the Streisand effect...
Traffic stats. Wa, wa, wa, waaaaaaah. There's also this WP page. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's gonna be more today. I just think it shoud be on the Main Page (in the News section) and i don't now why it's not there (I willl put in on Polish one tonight). We should stand for our freedom in every possible way (Jimbo). V1t 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * because it is rather less significant than the other events in ITN. In any case page views are down somewhat (Popular_articles) and it is only the second most viewed article in the last hour.Geni 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been proposed and rejected. It doesn't meet the requirements for ITN and I add that would be giving it undue weight in a conflict of interest. In a way, we stand for our freedom of speech, but we don't advocate. Hopefully, almost all newspapers and blogs are on our side on this, so we needn't ;). Rod Blagojevich being on the MP and in the news, it reached a high number of views (as usual for most US politicians, Wikipedia is the first search result on google). Cenarium  (Talk) 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Secure server
The ability of any affected UK user to access the page at using Wikipedia's secure server facility means that the IWF block is all but dead in the water. Sorry guys, looks like you lost and should now find a way of saving face and preventing future embarrassments for your organization.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless of course they block that page too, and wikipedia foundation's decision to oppose the IWF action while insisting on the right to keep the image does not mean the IWF has to save face, presumably they must have realised their actions would hit the news, so its really a matter of wait and see. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be so bold as to say this has hit Seppuku-demanding dishonorable levels since it's gone mainstream. Given the Gerard/Robertson interview, however, I'd wager on the IWF either not anticipating this coverage until it was too late or not knowing just how massive the response would be, and I'll go so far as to say the IWF likely has very little idea on how the Web actually works on a social and/or technical level if the method of blocking was based strictly on URL. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They can't block that, at least not with the same technology they are using to block the plain (non-encrypted) page. If they wanted to block https accesses it would be an all-or-nothing approach (i.e. banning the entire site), or by employing a "man-in-the-middle" attack (the website identity would no longer match and your browser would alert you). TH (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put it past them to do it Comcast style and just forge packets. Celarnor Talk to me  21:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hypertext Transfer Protocol over Secure Socket Layer is not infallible, but has proved to be harder to block in previous censorship situations. It is depressing and astonishing that the UK has managed to get itself into a situation more commonly associated with one party states, but here we are. On a personal note, I am constantly receiving HTTP 404 and 500 Internal Server Error messages while trying to access Wikipedia through Virgin Media at the moment, so the block is potentially causing a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Access to the Virgin_Killer article is the least of my problems right now, due to the far bigger shambles being caused by the Internet Watch Foundation block.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The 500 error is occurring outside the UK as well, so it looks like that's a separate issue. Black Kite 21:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This brings memories of the VeriSign Site Finder shambles years ago, when another seemingly "innocent" interference with the workings of the Internet had consequences far beyond what was imagined at first. In that case it didn't take many days for VeriSign to buckle under the pressure (admittedly, after being threatened by ICANN of being removed from TLD custodianship). TH (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the "official" entry point for secure wikipedia ? Is it https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page ? This one is quite long, is there any shorter URL that can be memorized ? Can we have a kind of "go secure" link from http://www.wikipedia.org/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremeways (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 December 2008


 * Is this better: tinyurl.com/securewiki ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexp2 ad (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 December 2008

Under an old ISP I had a voluntary URL filter (in that you could log in and turn it off) for porn/spam/phishing sites etc. I always noticed that the IP address through the filter (a shared IP whose Wikipedia talk page was riddled with vandalism warnings) was different to the one through the Wikipedia secure server, since of course, it didn't get passed through the proxy. Would this work for UK users who can't edit at the moment? In practice I doubt the secure server can handle so much traffic, but just wondering. • Anakin (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it might be time to Wikipedia to go to an all-secure model. There's no real reason every website shouldn't encrypt its traffic, and its long been something talked about by privacy and anti-censorship advocates. It's transparent to the end-user, and it solves the problem of man-in-the-middle attacks on the data stream like the ones we're currently dealing with. Switching to all https was originally proposed in the context of dealing with such censoring countries as China and Iran; regrettably, it now looks like we'll have to do it because of traitors in our English-speaking midst (I'm thinking of England and Australia here). I never would've thought the censorship actions that pushed us over this edge would be from supposedly first world countries, though. -- Cyde Weys 06:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well one of the reasons could be the huge increase in traffic and CPU time needed to process the requests :/ -- lucasbfr  talk 07:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We could just use encryption for logged-in users. That way, users trying to edit would be less likely to be sent through transparent proxies, and since registered users are a small minority it hopefully wouldn't take up too much more bandwidth. I know that wouldn't do wonders for the censorship issue, but at least it would help resolve the editing issues. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that it would require an increase in the number of processors in our server to handle the additional load of encrypting every connection, but this would still be a minor expense (less than $100K, maybe?) compared to our annual budget of $6M, most of which currently isn't spent on servers, hosting, and bandwidth. Considering Wikipedia's mission to spread knowledge, and seeing how censorship really does hinder that goal, it's worth it.  At the very least, we should advertise the secure Wikipedia URL at the top of every page load coming from one of the UK proxy ISPs.  When we know censorship is going on, we have to provide the tools to the common user to bypass it.
 * As for increased network traffic, why would that be? I'll grant that network traffic could increase given the following situation: Wikipedia uses HTTP compression, and HTTP compression is applied after the encryption.  However, it seems to make more sense to me that HTTP compression would be applied before compression, since obviously it can't be done after compression.  Yet, I simply don't know the answer.  Can anyone technical answer this?  Other than the HTTP compression issue, I don't see how HTTPS could cause a "huge increase in traffic".  You are aware that the ciphertext is the same size as the plaintext in pretty much any encryption algorithm in common use on computers, right?  -- Cyde Weys  14:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The money or the technical issues are not the biggest worry at the moment. Suppose that Wikipedia went entirely HTTPS.  Would this get the entire site blocked from school and public libraries?  Sadly I would not bet against it.  HTTPS solves one problem, but could lead to another.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying it. What chain of causality would lead to HTTPS websites from getting blocked at schools and public libraries?  Encrypted websites are a lot more common than you seem to realize: Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, eBay, Amazon, the list goes on.  Any website worth its salt that has a login and any content of value uses encryption.  Unless all of these are blocked are your local public schools and libraries, which I highly doubt, I don't see any reason why Wikipedia encrypting its connections should change anything.  -- Cyde Weys  15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that the most common use of HTTPS is for financial transactions, and that GMail etc also have a facility for HTTPS. The worry is that an HTTPS Wikipedia could (and I stress could) play into the hands of those who wished to argue that Wikipedia was uncontrollable by state regulatory bodies, leading to a complete block. The shambles and bad publicity that this would cause would probably prevent this from happening, but in the current "nanny knows best" situation, it is not impossible that this might happen. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there are clients out there that do not support HTTPS (and users who will always type "HTTP://") a HTTPS-only site is simply not in the running: We'll always have to have the ability to fall back to HTTP, even if the default is HTTPS. Arguably it's a flaw in our standards that HTTP doesn't have always-on transparent crypto. As such, they could filter Wikipedia by fully blocking the HTTPS and then filtering the HTTP. I don't think thats an argument against making HTTPS the default, quite the contrary: At least people will know that the content from Wikipedia is being monitored and manipulated by a third party. Right now it's unknowable, and thats very bad. It also may be that HTTPS will give techies the excuse to go tell their masters "sorry, it's encrypted, we have to leave that one alone".
 * HTTPS shouldn't result in any large increase in traffic. It would cause some increase from the minority of our users who are behind caching proxies. While such proxies are common in Australia they are pretty unheard of anywhere else. Also, bandwidth is a fairly small portion of the overall budget anymore. --71.163.150.202 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that all HTTPS pages are blocked for anyone with default permissions (i.e. students) by our educational provider, which serves over 3,000 UK establishments. Black Kite 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently Wikipedia loads all images and other media with HTTP even if the user reads the rest of the page through HTTPS, so such workarounds to view content your ISP doesn't want you to see would be futile (if the block was technically correct to block just the image). The increase in load of encrypting binary content that is much bigger than the compressed text would be immense. --89.167.221.2 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Small independent ISPs / corporate network WP routings being degraded?
Seems the way the proxying is being done by the majors may also be distorting the network for independents, feeding them false information and bolloxing up the efficiency of their routing to WP.

The following from "Neil" in a comment thread from the Register :

"My personal problem with this situation is with Virginmedia. We happen to get transit with them. Over a week ago we noticed that traffic directed down virgin to en.wikipedia .org was hitting a blank page. Further investigation showed they had started broadcasting wikipedias english prefix (their ip) as on their own AS. This means essentially that virgin are now claiming to be controllers of wikipedias server. This as far as I'm concerned is impersonation. Since BGP is a protocol based on 'trust' we trust them to provide us with correct routes to other areas of the internet. Also since they claim to own the ip address it appears to only be 1 hop away from us which is therefore automatically higher priority than any of the routes sent to us by our other providers who give the true number of hops to the servers (About 5-10 or so over to America). Unless we filter their route we our traffic will continue to hit this invalid server. This fundamentally breaks BGP. I believe RIPE frown heavily on this kind of practice."

If this sounds plausible to anybody with a networking background, perhaps it should be added to the "ISP points" section? Jheald (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really from a reliable source. It is posible but unlikely to be deliberate. Remeber the system we are seeing was never meant to be deployed on this scale so is probably somewhat hacked together.Geni 17:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocking anon editing here wasn't "deliberate". But it has been revealed as an unintended consequence.  Similarly, if routing is being degraded, I do think that should be flagged up.  Jheald (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Second report of same, again naming Virginmedia. Jheald (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Damage for Wikipedia
Any signs on the damage to wikipedia yet? I have noticed that VM are now blocking 25 other pages with the IWF Action in mention. Also is there much point in this as if you get a proxxy outside of the Uk you get a chance of getting through this awful ban. User:Itfc+canes=me Talk  Contributions  17:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Virgin Media's servers seem to be taking a hammering, not just because of the Virgin Killer block, but because of the collateral damage being caused by the IP address restrictions at the moment. On the question of "Is there much point in this?", the answer has to be "no", since as you mention, an open proxy is one of the ways of defeating the block (as well as the secure server option discussed above). Although YouTube is currently blocked in Turkey, the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan admitted to watching YouTube, and accepted that the ban is being widely flouted. . Had the folks at the Internet Watch Foundation had an industry standard amount of technical knowledge, they would have seen all of this coming.  Still, if they are getting their fingers burned, some good may come out of all of this by discouraging similar stunts in the future.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to think that it may be problems with Virgin Media due to the implementation of the blocking that would look like other pages are being blocked. It is peak time at the moment and problems are going to occur. If 25 other pages are being blocked, that would be very serious indeed. --tgheretford (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Itfc+canes=me Talk  Contributions, which pages are VM blocking exactly? D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IP recognition avoidance is a wide issue affecting many websites, open proxies is one of the least reliabkle of many methods people use to do this for a variety of reasons, such as watching online tv, and one that has not yet been more than touched upon in the mainstream media but nobody who is informed is seriously suggesting their are no ways to avoid things such as the IWF blacklisting. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't tell anyone, but I managed to access the offending page using surfasyouwish.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, the IWF is now blocking access to pages that discuss the IWF blocking Wikipedia, on Wikipedia? Like "Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia"? Is that what you are saying? rootology ( C )( T ) 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Might be related to Talk:Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia, which says that at least one ISP just blocked everything with the prefix <tt> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer </tt>. -- Amalthea 19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

IWF reverses decision
The IWF has completed its review of the image. They stand by their assessment as "potentially illegal". However, they have removed the Wikipedia pages from their black list due to the wider context.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Confirmed via Communications Committee. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  19:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody have any idea how long it will take the ISPs to reverse the blocks now? Davewild (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent news! Tarc (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoop whoop! Freedom of speech wins again! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that a google image search on google.co.uk produces an abundance opf copies of the album cover targeting wikipedia alone was clearly hypocritical, as someone opposed to us having the image I still think this is a good decision by the IWF. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No BBC article yet, but it is on the BBC news latest ticker that the IWF have dropped their opposition to the wikipedia article. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * guardian article.Geni 19:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Channel 4 next out of the gate Jheald (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The block is no longer operating on Demon Internet. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * BT Internet here at my mum's house, and the fake 404 is still present on Virgin Killer. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You attempted to download a 1976 image potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978, under your very own sweet ol' mom's roof??!! :O I'm speechless :p --Alf <sup style="color:green;">an unsweet and tough shameless thing 20:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should've heard my mum's reaction: "Who the fuck do they think they are, censoring the internet? For fuck's sake, it's just a fucking album cover". She's very classy, my mum. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a thug on thug's clothing 20:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't take this the wrong way, but I think I want to hug your mum. :D —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that it took BT over three days to actually implement the block in the first place, I'd guess we can expect it to be reversed some time on Friday. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta love optimism ;o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say which Friday? ;) <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Virgin Media is OK too. Ever since the block started and at least until a couple of hours ago I had an unusual problem that made me time out when trying to edit when logged in. That has gone as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Beeb now have it: BBC News &mdash; IWF backs down on Wiki censorship. • Anakin (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Auntie's article contains this classic quote from the IWF: "IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users." If they'd asked us first, we could've told them that. Drinks are on me folks! Who wants what? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That quote might be good as an example for use in the Streisand effect. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is from the IWF statement. —Sladen (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to Streisand effect, sourced to BBC News rather than the IWF direct, coz it sounds better to quote someone quoting someone in this case. IMHO. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a double freedom and coke please. And thanks IWF, you've given us a plethora of references for the Streisand effect article! Party round mine, uncensored internet for free. Remember to perform a full cleanup - keep adding references and news stories as they arrive, and tag each ISP when access is returned. Screenshots of the traffic graphs to relevant pages will be posted later this week for posterity. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good news, but poor logic from the IWF again. "...considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list." does not correspond to the actual letter of the law they are referring to in the UK. i.e. there is no "get out of jail" card for material that has been widely available for a long time - the legislative ruling is /absolute/ in that regard. Possibly worth highlighting in any WMF response? (Same goes for that Simpsons case in Oz with regards "old" and "widely-available" not being an adequate defence but that's OT here). Thanks & Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Amazing that people are so keen to see indecent images of children on their favourite website. This is an indecent and illegal image and should be removed. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's neither. It's an image of a naked child. My local park has several statues of naked children, all as erotic as dog vomit. Just like this image. naked children != child porn. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image can be considered indecent and it is now judged to be potentially illegal in the UK, therefore it should be removed. Why should naked images of children that may be considered indecent be allowed? 86.11.172.114 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 86.11.172.114 has a point. The IWF is /still/ asserting that the image is (potentially) illegal, but they are clearly making an exception to the WMF and anyone else outside the UK as a /political/ measure. I'd love to hear the WMF comment on such double-standards in passing, regardless of the "positive outcome". Harami2000 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Key word: potentially. What happens if it is legal, as was judged in the USA? There's no point in taking it down. IMO, the IWF should decide pretty quick whether it's illegal or not. If it does happen to be illegal, hopefully the way they deal with it will be much more considerate than what they did these past few days, which pretty much caused general chaos on-wiki... Icy  // ♫ 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They've backed down ungracefully. As far as can be told, the image has officially been declared not indecent and has been judged not to be illegal in the UK, therefore it should say. I'm a vegetarian and find images of meat and livestock to be indecent. Why should images of meat that may be considered indecent be allowed? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 21:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978..." Therefore it should be removed. Again, why insist on keeping an image of a naked child, that clearly is offensive as well as being potenitally illegal. Any user in the UK viewing this image may be committing breaking the 1978 Act. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you try and contact the IWF? Wikipedia's servers are hosted in USA; the image is legal there. The IWF was the one which started this, I wonder why they unblocked the image. Surely laws are more important than on-wikipedia crisis. And no, I'm not being sarcastic with that last sentence. Icy  // ♫ 21:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The IMF is not a law enforcement agency, it is a voluntary body set up to prevent the spread of illegal material on the web to the UK. Thus their main job is to shut down UK based websites that host child porn, or block foreign websites that contain child porn. This image was reported to them, and after consulting with the Metropolitan Police, it was judged to be illegal and the site blocked. They unblocked the image following an appeal by Wikipedia. The image is still judged to be potentially illegal, and clearly the offensive factor is still there. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...which does not change the fact that it was still, after all, the IWF's decision. Icy  // ♫ 21:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Freedom of speech may have won the day, but an equally likely explanation is that if the ban had gone on for much longer, the major UK ISPs would have pulled out of the IWF, bringing an end to its existence as a paradise for desk jockeys. The "potentially illegal" phrasing of the block was also ludicrous and could never have been defended in a court of law. It is still disappointing, though, to see the IWF using its pet word "potentially" in the statement that removed the block.  This means that "potentially" they could be trying the same thing with other websites in the future.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The IMF's decision does not make the image legal to view, it only allows UK citizens to view the image. The image itself remains potentially illegal in the UK under the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is clearly offensive, and given the nature of the image and the fact that no reasonable person would wish to be seen to condone child porn, it should be removed. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Potentially. Give us a court case which says it is blatantly illegal. And while we're at it, make sure there's one on both sides of the pond, as WikiMedia's hosted in the United States, where this image is not illegal. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a court case to determine it is illegal- it has been judged by a watchdog set up to block child porn to be potentially illegal as it may be illegal under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (an Act which is enforced in England and Wales only according to the UK Statute Law Database). I would rather trust such a watchdog's opinion than a lay editor of Wikipedia. Given it is potentially illegal to view this image, whether or not the watchdog allows it to be viewed, means it should be removed. Why should a respected website wish to host such images which may be illegal under laws designed to protect children from sexual abuse? 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with what you're saying is that, the way the law is writ, the IWF isn't even a judicial group, and therefore has no standing to judge what is and is not child porn in borderline cases like this (and nor does the police, whom the IWF consulted prior to the blocking). I would trust a judge/magistrate over a quasi-governmental entity in a borderline case. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that, under the 1978 law, an image is illegal only if a jury would judge it "indecent" according to the jury's assessment of the prevailing mores of the time, and convict somebody who possessed or distributed it. The legislation quite purposely gives no more concrete guidance than that.  What has become plain in the last few days, given the context of the image and the balance of the public reaction, is that a conviction for the possession or presentation of this image would be unlikely.  If the IWF had been taken to judicial review I imagine a judge would have told them that in no uncertain terms.   Similarly, whatever IWF say, I suspect it is now very unlikely that CEOP will be taking any action against distributors of the Scorpions box-set containing the image currently being merchandised in the UK.
 * As to why we keep it here, the image may well be deliberately provocational, tasteless and stupid; but a balance of editors here, evidently in common with a balance of the UK public, do not believe it is indecent; and do believe that it has become a historical artefact with some cultural history, of which this is a further chapter, that is appropriate to document.Jheald (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This makes no sense. Everyone now knows that the image is all over Google image search. The Internet is international, so a purely national block is futile and self-indulgent, as the IWF discovered. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It made no sense targeting wikipedia given that google et al also host the image but your arguments re internationalism do not make sense, of course any country has to concern itself with the internet in its own country, and the IWF clearly recognise this in terms of accepting wikipedioa is far from the only non-UK site hosting this image and on the other hand reserving the right to block this image if hosted by a UK based website. Thanks, SqueakBox


 * Perhaps only the Wikipedia page was reported? Note that in 2009, the IWF will have the power to block pages judged to incite racial hatred. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, only the Wikipedia page was reported. However, had they not reverted their decision, Amazon would have been blocked as it had been reported in the middle of this controversy. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 22:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...what does censoring racism-oriented pages have to do with any of this? Icy  // ♫ 23:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was pointing out a power that the IWF will take up in 2009, where perhaps more sites (or even Wikipedia pages?) could be blocked in future. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, i'll bite. I think that putting this image up for deletion while it was kept several times over the last 9 months in extensive discussion is a bad idea. It would be influenced too much by the recent events. Secondly, I would like to point out, esp. to 86.11.172.114 that many editors do not think this image is of pornographic nature, and find it even more relevant after this whole ordeal. There are many examples of underage children in potentially "erotic" poses, throughout the history of art. Since this album is 32 years old, there is a good point in arguing that it is already more history than it can ever be potential "child pornography". Also, if we remove this single image, we greatly influence our articles that deal with it, whereas there is little chance of it EVER anymore influencing the "perseverence" of child pornography. Thus the single remaining argument in my view would be "indecency", which is covered under "Wikipedis is not censored". Install a content filter if you are easily offended by nudity. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not offended by nudity, but I have no wish to see images of naked children. The main reason for not wanting to see images of naked children is that it is potentially illegal under UK laws. I do not understand why a popular and high profile site would wish to host images of naked children in the first place, and insist on maintaining them when it is known that they may be illegal in some countries. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there's an encyclopedic reason the image is there (in the VK album cover's case, there's a controversy section further down the page which discusses the controversy over the album cover). Also, Wikipedia is only bound to United States laws (as that's where the server farm is), where this image has not been found illegal, and as was pointed out in radio discussions on BBC Radio 4 this past Monday, the laws concerning this type of stuff are almost identical betwixt US and UK. I have said it countless times before and I will say it again: Wikipedia is not censored for the purpose of minors or morals. It is only censored if what is posted would violate US law. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The phrase "potentially illegal" is the now discredited management jargon used by the IWF to describe the VK image. By all means say that you find the image offensive, stupid or provocative, but please avoid a term that has no status in any court of law.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To me, the term "potentially illegal" means that there is a risk the police will arrest anyone found to have viewed the image, or have it in their image cache; or that the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales may well choose to prosecute anyone the police have arrested. Even discounting that, it means the image is in the same category as more obvious forms of child porn. Thus, again, why keep an image of a naked child that may well be acted on by the authorities? The UK authorities do take action in even the most seemingly innocent cases, where naked images of children are involved. 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.172.114 (talk)


 * You do know that a disc, with the image on it, is available in a box set, on sale in UK high street stores, today 2008? There is no way the DPP is going to sanction prosecutions in these circumstances. Jheald (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A private prosecution could be made. In anycase, the UK authorities are known to take a hardline on such matters. Not so long ago, an ITV newsreader was arrested after developing pictures of her children in the bath. If I ran a website and found that one of my pages was blocked by an anti-child porn agency over the fact that an image of naked child was being display- I would take it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.172.114 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You either have selective vision or are trolling, and as far as I can tell it's the former. Potentially illegal is NOT illegal unless proven otherwise by a magistrate/judge.  The fact of the matter is that if they upheld their blacklist this, then they would have effectively made a ruling about the content, which they are not empowered to do under the law (as stated, only a court case can determine whether or not something falls foul of the law, the way it is writ, IINM). Also, if a website I ran was blocked by an anti-child-porn agency, NGO or governmental (The IWF falls in between these two), I would determine why and what they blocked, and, if their rationale or what they blocked is utter bollocks, I would fight for my rights to keep the image on the site unless and until a judge finds it illegal in my home country (which, in Wikipedia's case, is the US).
 * You may not know this, 86, but Wikipedia is not subject to United Kingdom laws insofar as content goes because its servers are not hosted in the United Kingdom. The majority of the Wikimedia server farm is in Florida. Also, you may not realize this, but the FBI investigated this same image earlier this year after a conservative group complained, and found the image to not be child pornography. In short, the image is legal under United States law, and as such can be used on Wikipedia.  IANAL, but I do believe my post here counters every point you've ever made in this thread.  Read the whole thing instead of cherry-picking, thank you. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 23:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However, UK users living in the UK or its territories ARE subject to the laws of the United Kingdom- and are thus liable to potential prosecution if they view this indecent image. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The image has not been judged indecent by a judge, which is required (The IWF has no authority to legally judge an image obscene), and as such UK users cannot be prosecuted for it. Now you just look like you're trolling. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 08:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The image has been judged indecent by the IWF, following Metropolitan police advice. The relevant legislation is the Protection of Children Act. As such UK users can be prosecuted. It could be true that a person may not be successfully prosecuted for viewing the image, but there is enough information in the public domian to suggest the police could and will take action. UK users accessing this site are at extreme risk, especially since the indecent image is being used in more and more articles. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Neither the IWF or the police have no authority to declare an image obscene (as you keep trying to claim, and thus keep getting rebuffed on), and the law you cite specifically says a court case is needed to adjudicate obscenity. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the IMF and police have more authority than you. If they decide it is indecent, and illegal, then UK users viewing the image are at risk of prosecution. The spread of the image onto different wikipedia pages harms the ability of UK users to contribute to this important event and ongoing issue. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No they don't. They have an opinion, nothing more than that, and that is nothing until it is tested before a jury, and even that does not bind another jury, which in a different court would be quite justified in reaching the opposite conclusion. UK readers mught possibly be at riosk of prosecution, but my experience, which is based only in 35 years practical application of the criminal law, is that it ain't gonna happen. Now, we all have something to bring to this debate, but as of now I believe that your best contribution from now on might better be some silence. -- Rodhull andemu  00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The police's opinion is what matters here. UK editors may be prosecuted, even if a prosecution was not ultimately successful. It is on record that the police have ruled that the image would be illegal under current UK laws. And it is on record that the IWF consider the image to be indecent. Authorities in the UK do not have a good track record on dealing with these laws, whether it is the ITN newsreader questioned by police after Boots the Chemist told them she developed pictures of her children in the bath; or whether it is an ignorant mob ransacking a paediatrician pratice (mistaking the word for paedophile). When it comes to children, best to play it safe. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. Since you can't read what isn't bolded, it seems: Neither the police or the IWF have ANY legal standing to declare images obscene.  Only judges have the right to do so.  As such, unless and until a judge rules that the image is obscene, viewing it is not illegal, let alone a prosecutable offense.  You are trying to claim you know better than a barrister of 35 years experience when he tells you that the police cannot make judgments regarding this matter, and nor can the IWF.  You have crossed the line into trolling here and should stop immediately or else you may find yourself blocked for disruption. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 01:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The police and the IWF have made their position clear. And it has been stated on record by an official body that it is potentially illegal to view the image in the UK. And the UK's position is now being exported around the world, with other bodies now blocking the image and article. The editor who claims to be a barrister also states UK users are at risk of prosecution. It is essential that someone stands up for UK users so at risk here. It is not trolling, it is stating facts to support the images removal as it is both indecenet and illegal. Protect children and UK users, more important than technical issues. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the sound of a block coming, 86? I wager you'll know soon enough.  Reported for disruption.  And, no, the cops and IWF CANNOT RULE AN IMAGE ILLEGAL.  As Rod, myself, and several others have told you, only a judge can. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 22:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...You would do well to follow Rodhullandemu's advice here. Icy  // ♫ 01:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is right that users who support the IWF's stance against indecent images of children and those with concerns over breaking the law are able to discuss the issue. The consequences of what happens next may well have a significant impact on the website. Other countries may well take action, or UK users are prosecuted by the police who have judged the image illegal and indecent. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is their current stance the same stance they had when this whole issue started, though? Icy  // ♫ 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * IAAL: A private prosecution would be extremely unlikely. Even if magistrates granted a summons, which is unlikely on application of a private individual, the Crown Prosecution Service would take over the prosecution, as they are entitled so to do. UK prosecutions require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that would be unlikely to be granted if (1) prosecutions was not seen to be in the public interest or (2) it was perceived that the prosecution had a less that 50% chance of success. In such circumstances, the prosecution would be discontinued, with a very real risk of exposure to costs. So, I'm sorry, 86.11.172.114, but it ain't gonna happen. -- Rodhull andemu  23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not under estimate the UK police and what steps they would take against child pornography. By allowing users to upload images of naked children, Wikipedia is exposing them to the risk of prosecution and being placed on the Sex Offenders Register. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not underestimate the likelihood that the images they could get in trouble for could be judged not indecent in context. You need a magistrate to adjudicate appropriateness, 86, and this is something either you are not understanding or are flat-out ignoring. The IWF has no legal standing to judge an image as censorable, and as such unless the image has been declared illegal, they can't really be prosecuted or put on governmental watchlists, hm? -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 08:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, the IWF contact the Metropolitan Police to assess whether an image is illegal or not. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not unknown for the police to be overzealous -- for example the Mapplethorpe case.
 * Secondly, from their website, the IWF appear to mis-state the legal test. According to them, the image is indecent because it represents an "erotically-posed photograph of an under-18", based on the sentencing guidelines.
 * However, the Crown Prosecution Service official guidance says "It is important to note that the sentencing guideline is relevant solely to the issue of sentence and not the law of what does, or does not, amount to an indecent photograph. In R v O'Carroll [2003] EWCA Crim 2338 the Court of Appeal specifically stated that the original levels put forward in Oliver and, by implication, the revised levels in the definitive guideline do not bind a jury as to what is, or is not, indecent."
 * The actual test for indecency "is for the jury to decide based on what is the recognised standard of propriety. R v Stamford [1972] 2 Q.B. 391."
 * So even if one agrees that this is "the kind of pose you don't get into by accident, you know?", as one Register journalist (Sarah Bee) put it, that doesn't necessarily make it indecent.  In this case, I think it's also significant that the image is not explicit, is not erotic, shows an art sensibility, and has been in mass circulation as a cultural object for over thirty years.  That also makes it easily pass the U.S. test (Miller).  Jheald (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The police in the UK are very over zealous- which is why it should be taken down to prevent UK users being put at legal risk. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because UK users are not being put at legal risk. When you can buy a box set with a disc with this image in any UK high street, nobody is going to be arrested for looking it up on Wikipedia.  Jheald (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear that you may be confusing Wikipedia with a repository of illegal material. If you wish to contribute to an encyclopaedia, you are in the right place.  If you want to discuss uploading child pornography please go elsewhere.  As long a person is considered in sound standing, they are responsible for their own actions—be that motor vehicle theft, slander or dissemination of illegal material. —Sladen (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 86, it is becoming boring to reply on this, since it has all been discussed before. Please provide any evidence that the VK image was illegal (rather than offensive, crass etc), otherwise you are going round in circles and achieving nothing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is potentially illegal under the Protection of Children Act according to the IWF. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yawn. See previous comment (and others in this thread).-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your dismal of the facts in this case does not make the issue go away. Wikipedia should remove the naked images of children to protect UK users from legal action. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone arguing for the deletion of the image is potentially a pedophile trying to cover their tracks and should be blocked pending the investigation of the status of the image. --89.167.221.3 (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How so, given all edits are logged and tracked? In anycase, the argument appears to be between users against censorship (no matter what) and those with a more sensible opinion. No one here is suggesting ulterior motives 86.11.172.114 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this argument is between registered users who either know what the law does or have a general framework of it and an IP who, for all intents and purposes, might be a vicar protesting on moral grounds. The more sensible option is to leave it up until a judge rules it obscene, since the IWF does not have any legal standing to make such a call, which is something you happen to be dodging quite often. Please stop making the same arguments we've all debunked thrice apiece; it's seen as trolling and *is* a blockable offense. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 21:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have stated facts- the IWF decision, and the fact it is based on Metropolitan Police advice. Rather than being offended by the image, I am concerned a popular website allows naked images of children to be uploaded, a position which contravenes English law, and opens English and Welsh users to prosecution- whether that legal position is acceptable or even reasonable. All naked images of children should be removed to protect the website's reputation and to comply with English law. Perhaps you don't like the underlying issue- images of naked children, and prefer to hide behind supposed freedom of thought (which can never be used as a defence in English courts for this type of crime). 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also stated facts - The police have no authority to rule an image obscene under the law. Unless and until each image is proven illegal, the stance is that they are legal, 86. And Wikipedia *does* remove blatant child porn on sight (per United States law, as that is where Wikipedia's hosted); borderline stuff like this is added only if encyclopedic, meaning that they have context. So, BZZT, wrong, but thanks for playing, sir/madam. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note the IWF article states " On 25 September 2008 it was announced that the author, Darryn Walker, was to be prosecuted for the online publication of material that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service believed was obscene" So, the police can rule images indecent and take action. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Key word here "believed". This belief would not be vindicated until it got before a jury and they happened to agree. Please stop talking out of that orifice not usually given to vocalisation. -- Rodhull andemu  22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rod. Court case, or shut up. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But you have said that no-one could be prosecuted for what the police believe to be an indecent image- and here on the Wikipedia IWF page is an example of a prosecution to what they believed was obscene. That doesn't add up to me. Hopefully a jury would not convict a user who was exposed to this image by accident, but who knows in these cases. The Daily mail brigade would have a field day here. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither the IWF or the cops can rule an image obscene, nor can they arrest someone for possessing an image that is not obscene. Shut down your screamer unless you have a court case; I'm tired of listening to this phonograph. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether an image is, or might be illegal in some other country, or whether the police in another country might arrest someone for viewing this page, is neither here nor there when it comes to whether this image should remain on Wikipedia. All that matters is US law. The attitude of UK police is no more relevant than the attitude of the police in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran or China. If people in other countries feel that they are at risk, then they should avoid accessing Wikipedia, and/or protest such censorship. Wikipedia should not censor itself just because some people in other countries think it should be censored. (I speak as someone who lives in the UK.) Mdwh (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we go round the mulberry bush. 86, please either read up on the basics of UK criminal law, or stop posting here. Even if a prosecution was brought over the VK image (which is unlikely), the ruling would be given by a court. I'm off to bed now, so find someone else to argue with before you get blocked for trolling on the same point since last Tuesday.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reported 86 to AN/I. -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome a proper legal ruling on the VK image, since there has never been one in the UK. On the more general issue of suitable material and IP logging, it is unlikely that anyone in the UK would be prosecuted for looking at an image that has been in general circulation for over 30 years. Actually, I do agree that there are some risks to individual liberty in the UK, given the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach of the Internet Watch Foundation. This is something that needs to be looked at, so that people and websites are not investigated while acting in good faith.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The risks to English and Welsh users is real given the potential non compliance with the Protection of Children Act noted by the IWF and the fact that the Metropolitan Police approved the image being blacklisted. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can bet that the IWF contacted the Police a second time before un blocking it. If you are so overly-concerned, please sue the record company in a real court, then we can add the outcome of the court-case to the Wikipedia articles. —Sladen (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to know if the police did give advice on the unblocking. I don't think they mention that in their press release. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well lets ask then!. —Sladen (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

release. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they will supply the information requested. Under the Freedom of Information Act, they have to respond within 30 days. It will be interesting to see what they say. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't have to reply at all. This sort of thing is exempt under Section 30 of the FOI. Please stick to stuff you know something about. -- Rodhull andemu  22:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They could use a clause in the Act to refuse the request, however Sladen could appeal to the Information Commissioner- and sometimes he uses public interest to overrule the original refusal. Hopefully they can supply some information that is not against their policy. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the image
Should it be there? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it should be there. I find the cognitive 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)
 * 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)
 * Exactly. Just like the risk of editors in china being thrown in jail for logging into wikipedia articles isn't worth changing the 'pedia. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The image is not illegal - or at least, no credible source has asserted that it is. DuncanHill (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Maybe we should start filtering out articles critising Turkishness too, and block those counter-revolutionary upstarts from disrupting our harmonious society? - hahnch e n 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">dodge  Talk Contribs 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Exactly right. Never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to bureaucracy. There is no power-mad conspiracy here, nobody is in control. There's a bunch of people whose job it is to investigate alledged child abuse images, one of them investigated this one and marked it as probably illegal. That's all. The massive ramifications are a result of a chain of rules, bureaucracy and inflexible systems, with no-one accepting accountability. The IWF has an appeals process, but they don't make it very clear on their website. British Wikipedians who find this situation inconvenient need to collectively hire a solicitor (British minor lawyer) to contact the IWF, find out what that appeals process is and begin that appeals process. Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">dodge  Talk Contribs 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">dodge  Talk Contribs 19:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Liberty as a human rights organisation may be an alternative to a solicitor. Also I see that Amazon.co.uk does not have the nude image, although Amazon.com does.--  Barliner  talk  13:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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' --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, the image is actually on amazon.com. Why doesn't IWF go after amazon.com ?  Xtremeways (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The image was removed by amazon.com, but still displayed on The Scorpions official website Xtremeways (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that amazon.com has been censored? Are they more compliant than Wikipedia? Artgoyle (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Oh please, do have a sense of proportion. This is most likely one almighty cock-up; let's not go assuming one reason over another. Assume incompetence, not conspiracy. The IWF is not a conservative activist group, it is ludicrous to assume otherwise. Steve  T • C 20:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it sounds like a duck... Tarc (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Agreed, but if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, or any other nation blocked WMF access over Mohammed, would you support removing those religious images then? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 21:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Yes we do have a choice; tell them to go pound sand. The moment this project caves to special interest groups, then it is lost, IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the Muhammad images just prompted the anger of tens of thousands of Muslims around the world. Though they at least had the courtesy to contact us regarding their complaints. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Recall that there's no evidence that the image is the sole reason of the blacklisting. We're not going to let IWF sift through Wikipedia and tell us what they want to change. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to their site, they have no intention of telling us anything. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the propaganda arm of any government. That's why we can come here to read a factual account of what happened at Tianenman Square. Nor is it the PR firm for conservative or liberal activists, which is why we can come here and read accurate information about both the National Rifle Association and PETA in the same sitting. The image is notable, well known, has not been declared illegal under any jurisdiction, its display is covered under fair use and, as far as I know, the article in which it is displayed is factually accurate and does not in any other way violate policy or law. People use this site to expand their knowledge, not to witness how various governments decide what their citizens can read. The image should stay. Rooker75 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is definitely possible to access the image from the UK right now, if you do it the right way. Franamax (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I support keeping it as well. Controversy over that album cover dates to its release and is a part of its story. In all other cases where there is a case of a controversial album cover that was replaced in at least some of the world (Yesterday and Today, Ritual de lo Habitual and Electric Ladyland are the first that come to mind, but there are others, of course), we have included pictures of the album cover because they clearly meet FUC #8. I see no reason to make an exception here because some nitwitted Brit censor thinks it might be child porn (although it is certainly a shocking image, and one that no band would be allowed to use, much less create, for an album cover today). Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But if we have to remove it for whatever reason, we should replace it with this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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". -- Rodhull andemu  22:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * for clarity


 * 420chan.org was offlined by it's datacentre and a major carrier (level3) because of this image being posted on one of it's boards about a year ago. Their admins tried to use the fact it was here on wikipedia as a defense and that still didn't fly and level3 considers them a child porn distribution ring all because of this one image. To them, it's child porn, period. Anonymous


 * 420chan was offlined by its host for a great many reasons, not least of which being the fact that it served as a central point for organizing Denial of Service attacks, phishing, spam, harrassment, defacing of a number of websites, and writing scripts to fill other forums with CP in an attempt to have them shut down. That image may have been part of the reason, but it certainly was not the only one. -

The image should stay. As others have remarked, it clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. If we remove it because a not-even-government entity demands its removal, what happens when (for example) Iran demands removal of all pictures of women not in their traditional garb, and all mention of anything sexual? What happens when Zimbabwe demands the removal of everything criticizing their administration?


 * ok heres a simple thing. if this image gets removed, u might as well remove the page wikipedia is not censored and start censoring everything as it will be announcement to the world that wikipedia can now be bullied into censoring anything. the image as controversial as it may be was record label that came out long time ago and article for that record should have that image. its encyclopedic not pornographic. this issue now has nothing to do with whether the image in inappropriate rather it is about wiki's image as encyclopedia. if a country feels the image shouldnt be there then they should block that image and no one can stop them from doing so. china already doest it!! and there are enough people that believe its wrong. it will be a very slippery slope that wikipedia will go down on if this image gets deleted. so i support for stay. Ashishg55 (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The image is encyclopedic and pornographic at the same time, don't get me wrong here, I still want it to stay. I don't want Wikipedia to get censored in any way. Artgoyle (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * o i didnt mean to say its not pornographic. i meant its purpose is encyclopedic and not pornographic. in no way is it promoting child pornography... it was record label so its displayed for that record. i see nothing wrong with that (not that i disagree that picture is fairly disturbing) Ashishg55 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolve the dabate by bluring the image or obscuring the sexual regions of her boddy.--86.29.240.97 (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image removal attempt
The image was removed earlier, by an editor claiming that he was removing a deleted image. I'm assuming good faith here. The editor may have assumed that as he couldn't see it, it had been deleted. I've restored the image to the article, and would suggest that an edit notice on the article may be appropriate. Mayalld (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's rude.--Cleo v Joans. (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And? -<font color="32CD32">Jéské Couriano <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v) 09:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Injunction against IWF?
I don't know where to post this, but wouldn't it be an idea for Wikimedia to take out an injunction about its' inclusion on the IWF list? I know Wikimedia has lawyers, and I think IWF is acting illegally in this matter, and since they require ISP's to take their whole list or nothing you can't argue that it's the ISP's fault. An injunction in the UK is fairly easy to obtain if your interests are being violated. 206.165.101.124 (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a cause of action here. Stifle (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Causing damage to Wikipedia by preventing the effective blocking of vandals? DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it cause that accessing and editing Wikipedia is being disrupted for millions of people because of this IWF action? The IWF seems to be accountable to nobody but themselves, and presumably the courts, they don't appear to be willing to apply common sense in the matter. An injunction will force them to remove Wikipedia from the blacklist, (and as a positive side-effect the legality image in question will be determined by a judge, hopefully setting a precedent and forcing IWF to use common sense in the future). 206.165.101.124 (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It would probably more effective if either Scorpions (band) or a UK citizen or ISP affected by the block filed suit, seeking a judicial declaration that the image either does or does not fall under the law. If it doesn't, then this case is closed.  If it does, then a whole new political can of worms opens up as Amazon and other web sites will face similar blocking, record stores will have to pull the album or deface the cover, and private individuals who possess the album will face prosecution.  The resulting political firestorm should be interesting to watch.
 * As a Virgin user affected I'd volunteer if I could find a lawyer who would take the case pro bono. 206.165.101.124 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Logging in in case someone wants to contact me about this :) TH (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another option is for ISPs to band together and tell the IWF to either be more precise and accurate or the ISPs, as a group, will form a cooperative to take over the duties now done by the IWF. Or better yet, have the ISPs just tell the IWF "you're fired."  It is supposedly voluntary, after all.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * how about reporting the 'charitable' IWF for violation of it's charitable status? I'm sure unbridled censorship must count againstit (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk) Jw2034 (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not good for anyone associated with Wikipedia to make comments regarding any organisation's charitable status! GTD 15:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It might also be possible to seek a judicial review if the IWF is considered to be "otherwise exercising a public function", and its decision was outrageously unreasonable. Both of these however might be uphill points to prove.
 * Update: Given that IWF have official EU funding and a "memorandum of understanding" with the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police, and effectively make decisions for an officially-sanctioned cartel representing over 90% of UK internet connections, that would seem to speak to the first point. The Met also participate directly in the appeals procedure.  Courts have also apparently in recent years taken a less shy position on the second point, since the Human Rights Act 1998. Jheald (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to p.13 of a March 2008 legal paper (in PDF) entitled "Intermediaries, Invisibility and the Rule of Law" by TJ McIntyre, Lecturer in Law, University College Dublin (investigating the legality of UK Internet censorship including the legal recourse for owners of website's on the IWF's blocklist), the IWF itself `[d]espite its nominally private status...has accepted that it is “a public body” for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights and has undertaken to be governed subject to the Human Rights Act 1998' in minutes of the IWF board meeting held on 25 April 2001. The paper goes on to say that `[a]lthough it is not clear whether this concession would be binding if a judicial review were brought, it might provide the basis for such an action notwithstanding the lack of “any visible means of legal support” for the IWF.'
 * BTW, I for one would, despite IWF's unblocking Wikipedia, support WMF in seeking a judicial review as a test case and setting up a special legal fund to do so.
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib
 * Personally, I think it would be no bad thing for the IWF's position to be tested in court. I don't like the idea of a self-selected country-wide internet censor without any independent external appeal mechanism or judicial oversight. But if a case were to be considered, IMO it should be taken on only if it can be successfully financed from a single-purpose ring-fenced appeal for specific funds (including the costs of the IWF's lawyers if we lose). I don't think it would be an appropriate use of WP general funds otherwise. Jheald (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have written an email to the EFF to ask if they are interested in helping with this and also volunteered to take part in any legal action. I don't know how strong the EFF are in the UK though, I think most of their lawyers are US-based, and would probably not be able to help. Does anyone know of other organizations that might be interested in taking this up? TH (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe Liberty? <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Open Rights Group is also following this issue quite carefully. (Disclaimer: I am a member of ORG's Advisory Council.) — OwenBlacker (Talk)


 * A successful legal challenge is not out of the question. The main grounds would be that not a single person in the UK is likely to be prevented from seeing the image as a result of this block.  Here are the Google image search results for Virgin Killer, which are enough to keep the Internet Watch Foundation in nannying banning orders for a very long time. The other grounds for appeal are that the album has been on sale since 1976 without any legal problems in a number of countries, and there is little point in the UK creating a separate ban which does not apply in other countries (see Spycatcher).  No guarantees that this would work in court, but it is worth a try. -- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think testing the IWF in court would be a very bad thing. I cannot believe the IWF would block a Wikipedia page and not expect an enormous shitstorm to brew up, thus one may presume that for publicity/PR/legal purposes they have deliberately gone after a major site on a bit of a 'fishing expedition' to test the response. Taking them to court would risk legitimising what is a very small-time organisation that has never gone after a Google, Amazon or Microsoft (despite the supposed 'offensive image' being all over Google images and Amazon) in a big way and could give them the push to go up to that higher level of interference and censorship (just look at the situation in Australia atm to see how far it can go). The best thing to do if you live in the UK is to contact your MP (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/) highlighting the problem of an unelected, unaccountable censorship body (and the press along the same lines), until the IWF becomes an embarrasment to the Government who ultimately holds it's leash. Jw2034 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "I cannot believe the IWF would block a Wikipedia page and not expect an enormous shitstorm to brew up..." To this I give you Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." I think they simply issued this as a plain old block and didn't stop to consider what site it was they were blocking and what kind of response would come about. Tabercil (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at Liberty's website, they don't provide an email address but only a web submission form. I hate those, so I didn't contact them, but if anyone else (including Open Rights Group or whoever) are organizing some legal action and need affected volunteers I wouldn't mind being contacted. Although I couldn't care less about the image in question, I see censorship (especially by an apparently self-regulated entity without any accountability) as an evil that must be fought, it is the tool of regimes that I would not like the UK compared to. TH (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested, here is Open Rights Group's article on this event. --Bowlhover (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think an injunction would not only fail but embarrass wikipedia, especially as inability to edit the site is the responsibility of wikipedia not anyone else. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's due to Wikipedia's blocking of British IP addresses, yes, but not blocking the addresses would result in an unacceptable amount of vandalism. In my opinion, the IWF block greatly harms the project by (1) forcing it to block out British contributors or (2) forcing it to accept malicious edits.  --Bowlhover (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * IWF's blacklisting is only indirectly related to the IP problems. The main issue is the proxy servers, run by the ISPs, not the IWF, are not sending XFF headers as they should be. The proxy servers are being used because of the IWF blacklist, but censorship isn't the only reason an ISP would use proxy servers. We used to have similar problems with AOL before they started sending XFF headers. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, a home user would lack the standing to make a complaint against the IWF. A home user's dispute would be with their ISP, the only party in a position to challenge IWF in this case is Wikimedia.  If this has affected the ability of users to donate, there's the small matter of economic interference.  You also have the advantage that English libel laws carry a reverse burden of proof - they have made a damaging statement to ISPs about Wikipedia content, and they would then have to prove the image was in fact illegal (their public statement says it is "potentially illegal", but their actions defeat this qualification) and that it was in the public interest to make the allegation.  Libel trials are notoriously lengthy and ugly, and therefore people on the receiving end tend to back down PDQ.  A sternly-worded letter from WMUK counsel (assuming it has one) should do the trick, as I imagine IWF has little desire to be dragged through the mud.  217.33.218.200 (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Channel 4 website is now reporting Jimmy Wales as saying Wikipedia may challenge the ban in court. Jheald (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Contact the IWF
If you feel the IWF has potentially been abetting the infringement of your right to express yourself (via Wikipedia) or your right to view online materials not known to be illegal, and would like to make a complaint to the IWF about the matter, contact details may be found on [this page]. This equally applies if you yourself have not been affected by the censorship prompted by the IWF's decision to blacklist Wikipedia content, but would like to express your concern on behalf of others, or as a matter of principle.

zazpot (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you support the IWF action you can also express yourself on said page. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Contact your MEP
As the IWF receives funding from the European Community, it may help to contact members of the European Parliament. --JensMueller (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't see many politicans supporting a website's right to host images of naked children. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 86.11.172.114, this is borderline trolling, as your points have been discussed before. The VK image was never illegal in the first place, so if this had been taken into account, the blocking saga would never have occurred.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 10:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Contact your ISP
If you are a Virgin Media customer, and you feel that having your internet connection censored without your agreement is worthy of a complaint, please call Virgin Media's technical support helpline to ask for the block to be removed. If you have a Virgin Media (UK) telephone, you can call for free on 151; otherwise call 0845 454 1111. zazpot (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I did call Virgin Media's tech. support line, at approx. 2030hrs GMT on 08 December 2008, and was surprised to discover that the technical staff at the office I reached had not been made aware of the censorship decision.

The first person I spoke to denied that Virgin Media blocks anything, and he suggested the problem may have been due to anti-malware software on my PC, or due to problems with Wikipedia's servers. He refused to accept that the mainstream news articles about the issue - even the BBC one - were credible. He said that if VM was doing anything to block Wikipedia, the VM tech. support team of which he was a part would have been notified; so since it had not been notified, it was not possible that VM was responsible for the problem. I asked if I could speak to his supervisor, and he agreed.

The supervisor (Title: Manager, Technical Support; Name: Suman) was very helpful and courteous. He confirmed that the tech. support team haven't been told about a block imposed by VM on any Wikipedia pages. He tried accessing the Virgin Killer page but couldn't (his connection is routed via VM's network), even though he and his colleagues were able to access other Wikipedia pages. He agreed to investigate this, and said he would have somebody call me with news within a day or two. He agreed that if VM was indeed imposing censorship, his team should have been briefed about it, and that if the VM network was blocking Wikipedia pages, it was a major problem.

zazpot (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi zazpot. If you read the previous discussion about Virgin Media you'd see that they have no power over this web filtering, it's outsourced to the Internet Watch Foundation. Hence, the call centre staff were correct - Virgin Media itself are not imposing any blocks. It is all handled by the IWF. You may want to ask them to consider unsubscribing from an organisation which seems to block content so carelessly. P retzels Talk! 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pretzels, I did read it, but I disagree that they have no power over the web filtering. While it's true that IWF is responsible for the blacklist, VM has some control over how they respond to that blacklist. They can also lobby: for more reasonable standards to be applied in the creation and maintenance of the blacklist; to overturn legal requirements that they respond to such a blacklist; for a publicly-accountable body to be in charge of the blacklist; etc.


 * Changing ISP would be costly for me, both in time and money. I'd rather use my energies towards convincing VM to be more grown-up about these issues, and to raise awareness of the issues, than towards switching ISPs. zazpot (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I didn't suggest leaving Virgin Media, but cool. You might be interested in . P retzels Talk! 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Facebook groups
Seems like groups are being created about this on Facebook now as well... I'm surprised a little that none of the big media companies have yet picked this up... D.M.N. (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful of what you wish for. As has been said elsewhere, a Daily Mail reader in, for example, Tunbridge Wells may have different views on an article containing the words "Wikipedia, child, pornography" than the plethora of free speech advocates we have here GTD 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And now we have this: Articles for deletion/Internet Watch Foundation. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy closed. Davewild (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Petition
A petition has been set up about Wikipedia censorship in the UK here. Techman224 Talk  01:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For users from the United Kingdom - Get a petition on the Number 10 Downing Street website!

Pledgebank
Various UK internet users are pledging to change ISPs in protest of the censorship. Gwinva (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * That would involve getting rid of the monarchy.Geni 00:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The opposition MP was arrested for inducing a civil servant to illegally reveal state secrets Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He was arrested for allegedly inducing a civil servant to reveal what were alleged to be state secrets. DuncanHill (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be pedantic, surely he would have been arrested "...on the suspicion of..."? GTD 14:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be better - pedants are always welcome :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it should be, "He was allegedly arrested for allegedly inducing an civil servant to allegedly reveal what were alleged to be state secrets." I mean, where you there?  Do you really know he was arrested?  Maybe it's all just a government plot to make you think there's a government plot! — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Most popular article
Because of this - VK is now being labelled at Popular pages as the most popular page within the last hour. I can't see the page, but at a guess, a lot of vandalism is being aimed towards it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Censorship backfire, there's a name for it, begins with S. Can't remember it though. Message from <b style="color:red;">XENU</b><sup style="color:gold;">complaints? leave me a message!  17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Streisand effect. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah that's it! Thanks Message from <b style="color:red;">XENU</b><sup style="color:gold;">complaints? leave me a message!  17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This image is so difficult to find, censoring Wikipedia and annoying thousands of editors really makes sense :( I hope Wikipedia stands and fights against a move which has absolutely no legal basis in the EU. Lerichard (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the above links have been forwarded to the IWF with a request that they block Google. -- Rodhull andemu  17:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Including the Lego one? Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, censorship backfires. Check out these pageview numbers on Virgin Killer. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ohhh, snap. I knew it jumped twofold from normal traffic, but i didn't expect it to eat that to, what, sixty-fold. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Try about 250-fold, from about 500-600/day before Saturday to over 1,000 on Saturday to over 126,000 on Sunday. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm somewhere there is either a Scorpions manager who is very happy or very worried.Geni 06:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And it appears that Scorpions (band) has eclipsed Virgin Killer as the hourly top article. Protonk (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Virgin Kiler back in front - nearly 25,000 hits per hour. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage of this whole issue is the most read story on BBC News online worldwide at the moment. londonsista  <sup style="color:#ff66cc; font-family:alois light;">Prod  07:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is also true for 7 solid hours earlier this morning. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Long-term solutions
Long-term solutions
 * On an industry level, encourage ISPs and network managers who run proxies which are not intended as anonymizers to provide X-Forwarded-For, and have the Wikipedia software use it automatically if it's not already that way. This should only be done for verified proxies, otherwise it provides an easy way to forge someone else's IP address.
 * Create an automated user-registration page that is in a different domain, say, a subdomain of wikimedia.org. The server would also need to be on a separate IP block, otherwise it might be subjected to the same proxying as the main site.

This way, the next time some government does something like this just to wikipedia.org, its users can still create accounts. Also, if a government or corporate firewall manager pro-actively put in X-Forwarded-For, their users won't be affected like the English ISP customers are this weekend. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's already an account creation tool at stable.toolserver.org (see WP:ACC), but it's set to block all requests from blocked IPs. Might want to hack that a bit. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should set up an SSL account request page explicitly for this. If a user tries to register normally, send them to that page where the request can be validated.  I'd volunteer to work on approving accounts if we do indeed set this up.  Also, I say faster SSL wikipedia access, or a wikipedia mirror that is uncensored.  This move by the Internet Watch Foundation is completely uncalled for.  <sub style="color:red;">David <sup style="color:cornflowerblue;">WS  <sub style="color:lime;">(contribs)  15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We already do the first one, see XFF Project. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 18:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Then a banned user could add a  header to his requests and thus circumvent the ban. Again: The problem is not on wikipedia's site but on the ISPs, they must not "force-proxy" their users, EOD. --62.214.202.155 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The ISPs are forging the client IP addresses for no reason. There is absolutely no reason a proxy needs to advertise it's OWN IP address as the client IP address if not desired. There is the Via: header that they can add in this case. See RFC 2616. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This might be a side-effect of their brain-dead transparent proxying; this problem doesn't appear in a small-scale transparent proxy, in a LAN for example, but in this case they might have a problem. <span style="border: 1px black solid;background-color:#ccc;font-size:8pt;color:black;padding: 1px;padding-left:8px;padding-right:8px;">Niczar ⏎ 08:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely a MUST that ISPs present information to the user explaining that the URL is CENSORED, instead of them just dropping the connection. The first rule of "desired censoring", is that people are always made aware of the fact that they are being censored. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a must in the united states, as far as I know. IF the IWF is replacing the virgin killers page with a forged wikipedia 404 page, that is a no-no.  Were this a US organization, some complaints could be brought against them depending on the technical means they used.  But that's the pickle.  They can't demand we take the image down and we can't demand they not forge page information.  But that is only dependent on a determination that they actually are forging page information instead of dropping the connection.  Can someone upload a screenshot of the 404 page for either the image or the article? Protonk (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the message Demon Internet users recieve, as linked to by the Wikinews article. However it would appear Demon are one of the more honest providers and other companies simply serve a blank page, or one so small the browser displays its own default 404. P retzels Talk! 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I get:
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

! results from dah31's server in Hull (via 213.249.193.2) Trying 91.198.174.2... Connected to rr.knams.wikimedia.org. Escape character is '^]'. GET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer HTTP/1.0
 * $ telnet en.wikipedia.org http
 * $ telnet en.wikipedia.org http

HTTP/1.0 403 Forbidden Server: squid/2.6.STABLE15 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:13:04 GMT Content-Type: text/html Content-Length: 304 Expires: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:13:04 GMT X-Squid-Error: ERR_ACCESS_DENIED 0 X-Cache: MISS from wensleydale.karoo.lan Via: 1.0 wensleydale.karoo.lan:3128 (squid/2.6.STABLE15) Proxy-Connection: close

Error 404 HTTP Error 404 404 Not Found The Web server cannot find the file or script you asked for. Please check the URL to ensure that the path is correct. Please contact the server's administrator if this problem persists. </BODY></HTML> Connection closed by foreign host.
 * }. Note that the error code is actually 403 Forbidden.&mdash;Dah31 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I get a fake 404 error when trying to access the page with a browser. When I however try Dah31's method, the page delivers fine! The browser must be sending some additional headers that make the proxy react. --Ticram (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this was the case for all but the demon editors. At the very least for the first 2 days of this mess. But on the long term issue. It is absolutely key we gather information on which ISPs are "good" and which are "bad". Which ISPs add the XFF headers, which use Via: headers for proxying, and which fail to present proper "description pages". This way we will be able the NAME the worst of the ISPs and have the slightest bit of hope that they will FIX it. As long as they are not named, these technical issues are not likely going to be fixed. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I'm not sure what kind of pressure we can bring against ISPs that dont' forge ip information, but you are correct that we should figure out who does this and who remains a compliant proxy. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So far it appears that none of the ISPs subscribing to the IWF list and using proxies is sending XFF headers. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 02:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Tim if he can help us name the ISPs that do not provide the XFF headers (some do have them says Tim), he is apparently looking at it right now ! Where would we be without our developers. The advantage of ISPs with XFF headers that are on our list are: "users editing Wikipedia from behind the proxy will appear to be editing from their client IP, not from the proxy IP. Wikipedia administrators will be able to block clients individually; the whole proxy will never be blocked due to the actions of a single vandal." --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I already listed this at the top in the summary, but i'll note it here as well. Tim Starling ran a scan on the logs, and only the 89.* and the 62.* IP addresses do not provide XFF headers. So we can think about making requests for the other IP addresses to be added to our "trusted" list of proxies, so that those editors can go back to a more "normal" editing routine. Of course, doing that would limit the visibility of the other problems, but this should not keep us from helping as many UK users as we can. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/XFF_project --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Instant, brief blocks
If the reduction to just a few IP address for most UK Wikipedia traffic stays, with no easy way to distinguish between good and bad IP users, can I suggest something that should reduce vandalism sprees?

This is something I suggested some time ago (I think it was early this year), probably on VP (Technical). It got shot down at the time, but I still think it's workable, and could be a partial solution to vandalism concerns in this situation.

My suggestion: Established users (not just admins) should be permitted to impose instant, short blocks on IP users currently engaging in obvious vandalism. I'm thinking that a block of no more than ten minutes would be about right.

Advantages:
 * 1) Greatly reduces need for admin involvement.
 * 2) It would greatly disrupt IP users engaged in a vandalism campaign. (Think of it: if you were a vandal, then having to wait up to ten minutes between each piece of vandalism would be very dispiriting.)

Disadvantages:
 * 1) Benign IP users could still find themselves blocked if they're unlucky enough to be editing just after a vandal got blocked.
 * 2) Some less-able established users might misuse the tool by blocking well-meaning IPs that make bad edits.

Possible features: --85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The privilege to block could be withdrawn in cases of misuse or abuse by the blocking user.
 * 2) Only to be used against IP addresses.
 * 3) Made clear to the blocking user that it should only be used for obvious vandalism.
 * 4) Only against currently vandalising users (e.g., the last edit was vandalism, and was in the previous five minutes).
 * I don't think that'll happen any time soon. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know the actual numbers of edits from the UK, but it's surely hundreds or even thousands per minute. Times that by 10 and you get an awful lot of collatoral damage. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong place for this discussion I'm not sure where the right place is but this isn't it. I could see a permission vandalblock being created for "established" editors, similar to rollbacker, that would grant 10-minute blocks on editors, with usage limits, like 5 a day or something, to prevent abuse.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article
I have removed a good number of geographicaly-specific reports of blocks, and details of ISPs who have now removed the block, as they are summarised in the table. Should anyone need to refer to them, here is the last version which included them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fake 404 messages
The aspect of this affair that has annoyed Wikipedians more than any other is the production of fake HTTP 404 messages during the block. Even when material is obviously illegal, it is questionable whether the production of fake 404 messages is a wise response (or even legal). This is a star chamber approach, since it lacks openness and accountability. It would be easy for the Internet Watch Foundation to set up its own custom 404 page giving the reason for the block (here are some samples of custom 404 pages). In this Guardian article, Frank Fisher argues that the IWF "acts as a quasi-governmental clearing house for every nutjob with a bee in his bonnet about other people's surfing habits." While this is putting it strongly, there are legitimate concerns about the way the IWF goes about its business.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again I think you've missed the point. As I understand it the IWF doesn't do any blocking nor do they serve 404 error pages. They simply provide a list of potentially illegal material to the ISPs who then block this list however they want. The only dictate I'm aware of from the IWF is (according to one editor anyway) that any provider who wants access to their list must block all websites. It is not the IWF's fault if the ISPs do their job poorly. If your ISP is blocking websites but not making it obvious they are doing so, you should be complaining to your ISP. As I understand it, some ISPs (like Demon) DO make it clear they are blocking. While perhaps your could argue that the IWF should dictate how ISPs block content, this seems a bit unnecessary to me. (I should point out also that the WMF does use a custom 404 so anyone experienced with wikipedia should know the 404 is not the WMFs) Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "On the rare occasion content depicting child sexual abuse is traced to servers in the UK, a takedown request is issued by the IWF and the content is removed, usually within a matter of hours." If that's what the procedure is when potentially illegal content is found in the UK and they believe it to be illegal in the UK regardless of where it's hosted, on their reasoning it would then naturally follow that on servers where they or their partners have no jurisdiction, they will act in a way that is in effect the same as if the content had been taken down. The browser the majority of web users have acts on HTTP headers anyway and wouldn't show fake 404 messages that could be noticed to be different from the usual 404s of a site.
 * To take an example from another country, in Finland the law mandates that internet services providers can block access to child pornography, that the police can assist in this by providing lists of urls, but that the police must let the user know every time an access attempt has been blocked. The scary page informing people refers to this law. In the UK it seems the instructions weren't quite as clear on what should be done when someone tries to access a page on the list.
 * In Wikipedia's case it wouldn't have made much difference if there had been a page or not though, since the way we use IP addresses helped reveal the broken proxies quickly (User talk:89.167.221.3, Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178 and the beginning of this page). --Para (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The IWF decision can be seen as the direct or indirect cause of the fake 404 messages. In many cases, no attempt was made to inform users that the page was being blocked, or the reason why the block was occurring. This is sloppy and unacceptable. As this news article points out, the major UK ISPs are not legally bound to accept the IWF's decisions anyway. Like the film industry, they have accepted a voluntary code rather than to be forced into legislation that might prove even more restrictive. If pages have to be blocked, the process must be open and accountable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, it actually took 38 hours from the first edit from these IPs to the first time Virgin Killer was mentioned on wiki, or 43 hours to the first time Virgin Killer was confirmed on wiki. The community disappoints me :) as a common warning page from the IWF/ISPs would have been way quicker in raising the stink! --Para (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Let's not forget that during the Seigenthaler incident, the offending material was up for over four months before anyone noticed it.  The length of time is not the major issue here, but what should happen when it is pointed out.  The Finnish police page at  is a good example of the information that all UK users should have received during the VK block.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 12:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That was in reference to my earlier comment about the community being quick enough to notice the censorship even without a notice page, but as it turns out, the pointing out took much longer than I assumed. Anyway, the Finnish censorship experience hasn't been all that exemplary either, even though their 404 page covers the aspects mostly neglected by the UK ISPs, at least for those who understand the official languages of the country. --Para (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is actually interesting. First time attention drawn to this issue on AN was after 16 hours. People were than still quite confused, because it was only 1 ISP at that time. Ideas were that something might be wrong on Wikipedia or at the ISP side, but no one had any idea why apparent proxying was going on. Then 19 hours after the first proxied edit, User:Jayron32 puts two IPs together and figures out that something very unusual is going on. Then after almost 24 hours, a third apparent case is reported by User:Ddstretch. Then after almost 29 hours I suggested that this may be related to the IWF, but we still don't know what, if anything is blocked. Suggestions of "gathering of evidence for criminal activities" was a one time suggested. It takes almost 14 hours after the IWF suggestion for confirmed evidence that the IWF has blacklisted the Virgin Killer article (trough the error messages of some demon users). 14 hours to confirm a case of censorship, and that 43 hours after the first ISP started blacklisting. That is quite out of this world. 6 days for the blacklisting to be lifted, with some ISPs apparently still affected today (almost 8 days since the first edit). On one hand, I'm impressed by the speed with which Wikipedia users started to work on this after the censorship was confirmed to get it lifted, on the other hand, i'm scared that it took an influential and highly motivated team of volunteers this long to get everything back to normal. I wonder how long it would have taken an individual, or even a company such as Amazon to get "off the list". --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Out of the USA, Finland and the UK, the UK is so far the wooden spoon award winner for the way it handled this issue. The FBI investigated the Virgin Killer cover earlier this year, but the authorities in the USA did not put the cart before the horse by issuing a block without obtaining a court ruling. If the authorities in Finland can issue a page redirect when a block is in place, the UK authorities can do it as well.  The UK needs to handle this type of incident with greater care.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the issue of protecting children outweighs any inconvience suffered by a few internet users. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your "argument" hinges on it being harmful to children, a point which is quite debatable and rather dubious. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Having images of naked children on a popular website is harmful, and it is also potentially illegal to view these images in the UK. That is a much more important issue than worrying about technical issues for a minority of people. What Wikipedia should have done is to remove the image until an investigation could be completed. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-pornographic images are not harmful, and there is nothing "technical" about supporting the retention of the image; it is a simple case of not submitting to the demands of censorship and wanting to provide an encyclopedia that can be free of such claptrap. The "minority of people" in this case are those such as yourself who wish to delete it. Not really much else to say, and I am quite satisfied with how the Wikipedia responded to the IWF. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Plusnet moving from 404 to 403
... in response to customer reaction, and having reviewed the guidance from the IWF, according to this post on their official blog. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice ! It is good of PlusNet that they are responding this quickly. I applaud their commitment to their customers. I would also advice them to request IWF to look into the blacklisting of BOTH images and pages that include them where possible, or just images where advisable (wikipedia article :D ), and the technical issues that would be involved in this. I congratulate PlusNet in joining the rank of Demon, as being the most transparent and technically well sounded implementations of these ISP blacklisting. The rest of the ISPs would be wise to take a page from the book of these two. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Reappearance of problem?
(Via BT) Problem seemed fixed for a few days, but now it's reappeared. Once more I am routed through the shared IP 194.72.9.25, and once more Virgin Killer is blocked. Anyone else noticing this? 194.72.9.25 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC).


 * I'm on NTL/Virgin from the UK and was blocked before. Not now.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been days already, but many proxies are still active. They hadn't been used before this fiasco, so Wikipedia is still suffering from having to block anonymous editors routed through a broken censorship proxy. Virgin, Be and BT seem to be affected, and possibly Opal as well. --Ticram (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any awareness as to:
 * - whether the block was re-instated accidentally or not??
 * - due to another complaint, or inadvertent error??
 * - the same reason as before/re-escalated complaint??
 * - whether this is due to 'unforeseen technical issues'??


 * More information would be appreciated!! (Kreb (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC))


 * BT have been on and off the whole time: look at the contributions of the IP. --Ticram (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it baffling that people perceive this to be a transient, or intermittent problem. What I observe - from the contribs. log - is that, after a 2½-day period from when the initial block was reversed, ALL anonymous contributions since from BT subscribers (with the exception of the occasional admin. ban) have been filtered; once again, admins. do not seem to be fully aware of how many users are affected. When up to 4 million subscribers are affected, is it really fair to bar the proxy IP on a completely ad-hoc basis?? Perhaps rolling 1-hour blocks in cases of vandalism would seem more appropriate.


 * However, this problem  will not be resolved unless the ISP's, or IWF are made (or pressured) to reconsider the filtering. Again, it will not be resolved, unless this happens.
 * What I find even more baffling, is that there appears to be so little concerted action from users. We know that the IWF will only make a statement when pressured to do so, but to know that Wikimedia Foundation are not supporting us, and taking up the case as quickly as they did last week is very disappointing.
 * I would contact my ISP (BT broadband) to complain, but given that the majority of their (telephone-based) technical support staff are based in India, and that it is hard to make them fully understand any situation effectively, or to take a problem seriously, I feel this would almost be a complete waste of time. (Kreb (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Tips for calling help-lines:
 * Ask for the ticket number. This really gets the attention of the person taking the call, since their performance can now be tracked.
 * If you're not getting satisfaction, ask them to bump it up to level 2. Most help desks work on a three-level system and asking for a call escalation is a big deal for the front-line people. If you just ask for their supervisor, they will put you on hold forever - if you ask to escalate the call, they really will go ask the manager, especially if they've already given you the ticket number.
 * Another strategy is to try calling the contact phone numbers listed at Whois searches, they will sometimes get you into entirely different areas of the organizations where people have the real priority numbers to connect you to. (Don't tell anyone I said that) Franamax (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The BT broadband sales team is based in the UK, you could try and contact them. Although I would not advice complaining about being blocked from seeing webpages with naked children on them- they do record such calls and given the image's potential illegality, you would put yourself at risk. 86.11.172.114 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to rain on your cleanse-the-world crusade 86., but the image is not illegal. There is not one single judgement and no indication that it is a prosecutable offence to view it or possess it in cache, in any jurisdiction. In any case, the primary issue is the kludge-handed method that ISP's have used to implement the filtering, which results in blocking of legitimate access to the Wikipedia editing facility. Completely aside from issues of censorship, the technical method adopted is just plain stupid and is a subject of legitimate complaint. Nice scare tactics though. Franamax (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I contacted my ISP (BeThere) and they said that "We are blocking some pages if they are abusive", which I suppose means that some other pages are still being censored. I am trying to puzzle out which ones.Badfish99 (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That sure sounds like a scripted answer, and doesn't say anything about how unblocking happens, if at all. Their rerouting of all traffic to the European Wikipedia IP is probably more work to remove than it was to add, and that sort of information doesn't get to the helpdesks. After all, in other "potentially illegal content" cases they're most likely never removed and nobody contacts their ISP about the more than potentially illegal ones, so straight forward removal procedures may not even exist. --Ticram (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not about whether I can access that image, or even that page. It's the fact that every time I wish to edit - I can't. My connection to Wikipedia is being slowed up, and, actually interfered with - because the filtering means my IP-address is being altered. So basically, my internet connection is being intercepted/interfered with. Something tells me that this would be an offence under the Telecommunications Act 1984, by interfering with BT's network/causing its signals to be disrupted, but I would need to seek legal advice. ALso, the potential for defamation - what is the block saying about people who are accessing Wikipedia for innocent reasons?? That they're complicit in abuse or trading images?? Added to the fact the image isn't unlawful, certainly hasn't been ruled unlawful by any court. It doesn't bear thinking about, really. (Kreb (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC))
 * If you read over your printed T&C's and check over all the places you clicked on "I agree", I'm pretty sure that you've surrendered control over the delivery method, including IP address presentation, and agreed to use pretty much whatever method your provider decideds on. The basic issue in your case is that your use of your paid-for internet connection is being impeded, no different than the case when your connection drops out seven times a day. It's a commercial issue and the answer is to change providers. Call them up, ask when the proxy problem will be fixed and make clear your intention to switch. Even if you're on a fixed-term contract, if they can't provide reasonable access, they are the ones who have breached the contract (IANAL). Talking about dollars (pounds) speaks much louder than talking about freedom. Franamax (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I am actually considering changing providers, but the one I wish to move to hasn't officially launched yet (yawn). It would also be good to avoid moving to one that has participated in the block, too. But arguments remain the same nonetheless, IMO. And there are some rights, by law, that they can't assign away. Efforts really need to be co-ordinated on this issue. It can't be solved by individuals acting alone. (Kreb (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

Yep - I was able to access the Virgin Killer article and edit under an IP yesterday, but today it's back to a 404 error on Virgin Killer and being routed through the 194.72.9.25 proxy.--Newentry8 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just returned from a weekend away to find my connection (BT) which wasn't being proxied on Friday, has returned to being filtered. Am going to call them when their helpdesk reopens tomorrow (a) on the principle of it, and (b) because I need an excuse to change providers anyway... <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 18:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also just arrived back at my mum's in North Yorkshire after a weekend in Edinburgh, but the article is not filtered by BT here and Special:MyPage when logged-out gives me an ordinary dynamic IP (albeit geolocating to Rotherham, for some reason). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 18:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, the 'Rotherham ordinary dynamic IP' routine, eh? Oldest trick in the book :p --Alf <sup style="color:green;">doesn't know how long the average murder takes... 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Talking of which (I'm still filtered down here in the Midlands by the way, I just checked), surely the BT proxy talkpage User talk:194.72.9.25 shouldn't be semi-protected? Appears to have been semi'd in response to a few minor bits of vandalism? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What appears to have happened, is that on Sunday morning, one user logged in, and blanked the page, replacing the text with something along the lines of 'why can't i...?? blah blah...'. An admin. took grave exception to this, and semi-protected the page. Now this means that only registered users can edit the talk page, but not the people currently using the IP address!! In the past, I've made anonymous reversions to my own talk page (to clean it up), and have been heavily warned by admins. that this is unacceptable conduct (with edits promptly reversed). If this still holds true, then the implication that other users are allowed to edit 'someone else's talk page at will would seem extraordinary to say the least. Meanwhile, I've asked for the page to be unprotected.(Kreb (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
 * Update: the unprotect request was declined, however, the block has been shortened to 2 months - because of the vandalism, there is little to suggest a resolution before then. (Kreb (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
 * BTW, does this now mean that, in some parts of the country, BT broadband is being routed correctly, but not in others?? This would suggest a technical error, or human error or similar. But we will not know, of course, until tomorrow!! You'd almost think they'd deliberately waited until the weekend to start filtering... (Kreb (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
 * And now I'm not being filtered again. Fixed?  Who knows? <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I first noticed the block had been lifted, when I logged in at 10-15 am. Because of this, I failed to pursue the matter further. But the fact that BT feel they can block sites on a whim (after IWF lifted the block), or make errors which could have led to the block remaining in place are just not good enough. It would be good if someone could put them on the spot about this; they must be accountable to their users. Meanwhile, as I'm already transferring some of my utilities, I'm considering moving my broadband as well. 666, anyone?? (Kreb (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC))