Surprised no one has brought this up here, but apparently users of major UK ISPs are all being assigned one of three IP addresses. See the discussion and bugzilla for the drama.

Alright. Looks like Brion has taken up the issue at Bugzilla. Hopefully we can get this problem resolved, as NEITHER of the outcomes (allowing rampant vandalism from these IPs or blocking millions of quality users) we have availible seems to be working right now. And for the record, I liked my title better (Island of Great Britain reduced to 2 IP addresses. Chaos Ensues.) to be much more attention grabbing. Whoever changed it to this bland title is a buzzkill --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is where UK users of certain ISPs (at least UK Online) get proxied trough when a site has been flagged by the UK Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk ... It seems wikipedia got flagged for childpornography. The other IP addresses might be the filters of other ISPs.

It seems that the problem has been caused by Wikipedia acting as a host of child porn or other unsavory material.
Diff

YAAAAAY! That means David Gerard is blocked forever!

Ding dong
The Gerard's gone!
Which Gerard?
David Gerard!
Ding dong
The wicked Gerard's blocked!

So Wikipedia has been flagged in the UK as a child pornography site? I'm not entirely surprised - the presence of the Virgin Killer image was always going to do it eventually, surely?

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

what is the image? if Wikipedia is hosting child porn, isn't that illegal in the US also??

It's an album by the Scorpions.

The cover is a little girl, nude, but with any bits covered by a faux-broken glass effect.

To be honest, it may be constred as pornographic to some, as she's in a sexual pose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256253623

Huh. That's interesting. Not sure I understand it yet. Could someone give me an NPOV summary?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If UK authorities are bringing the crackdown on WP, I suspect it is not for image hosting, but rather for providing a friendly space for otherwise promoting pedophilia. A harder case to make, I think, but by no means impossible.

This is the kind of thing that the "ZOMG!! CENSORSHIP!!!" attitude can give rise to. Given the head-up-the-ass culture that pervades WP, they have not a hope of understanding the distinction between real censorship and entirely appropriate self-regulation and self-restraint.

Agreed, but the thing now is that this situation will give the leftie-community even more reason to keep the image!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255943851

This user is vehemently against the Internet Watch Foundation's censorship of the article for the Scorpions album Virgin Killer. Sceptre (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The UK police are now likely to take an interest in those who edit and attempt to normalise the practices described in certain articles, and will no doubt be visiting some wikipedians to peruse their hard drives and media collections. Not before time either.

Yes, because trying to access what has been defined as child pornography makes perfect sense, right?

If the VK image was, in the legal sense, child pornography, I'd think that at least someone on the record label would've said something before it got released. Ditto for Blind Faith and Nevermind, notsomuch for Houses of the Holy.

If the police came round to my house and found the album cover in my record collection, they would probably be fine. If they found it among my porn collection, I doubt they would. It's a question of context. For the sake of what is going on, there is no reason to use it on Wiki.

Let's have a bit of common sense here? The image is not "Child porn in the UK". According to a third party, internet watchdog group, it may be IN THEIR OPINION, and it provides filtering that ISP's use. No determination has been made in the UK.

In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if he accessed an image without saving it.[74] Indecency is to be interpreted by a jury, who should apply the recognised standards of propriety. A child is a person who has not reached the age of 18.

Under UK law, an image that appears to be a photograph of a child, but is not a photograph, is referred to as a "pseudo-photograph". It is also illegal to make, distribute, show or possess with a view to showing or distributing an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child, under the Protection of Children Act. As of the commencement of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, this prohibition will be extended to encompass "tracings" of photographs. [75] In 2008, the Government announced further plans to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images depicting under-18s. The Government claimed it was needed to close a loophole for images derived from actual images of abuse - despite the fact that this loophole is closed in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and the new proposals criminalise images not derived from actual abuse.[76][77][78] The children's charity NCH, stated that "this is a welcome announcement which makes a clear statement that drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse are as unacceptable as a photograph". Others stated that the intended law would limit artistic expression, patrol peoples' imaginations, and that it is safer for pedophiles' fantasies "to be enacted in their computers or imaginations [rather] than in reality"

We might as well all head off to see the wizard of oz - if anyone here thinks that people in the uk are going to be sent to prison, hell even investigated for accessing that page.

That album is legally available in the UK - it was imported and thus has gone past C&E, there is no change of anyone being investigated or charged for looking at the cover of a freely available album! none.

I've never read such utter shite - can you explain how looking at an album cover of a freely available album in an article about that freely available album would lead to someone being arrested for child porn?

It would be laughed out of court, fuck it would never get to court even the CPS wouldn't touch that one.

I've never read such utter shite - can you explain how looking at an album cover of a freely available album in an article about that freely available album would lead to someone being arrested for child porn?

It would be laughed out of court, fuck it would never get to court even the CPS wouldn't touch that one.

Secure server has been blocked by Opal telecommunications aperantly, it just refuses connections. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, if perhaps the Coppertone Girl could get blocked as well.

Every time someone is forced to use the IP proxy, they are being flagged as a potential child pornographer.



Again, context. Growing poppies in your garden is legal. Collecting the seeds to plant them is legal. Making opium from them is not.

I thought the UK were generally more liberal when it came to these "edgy" album covers... for example, that notorious Blind Faith album was released as-is in the UK, but with a completely different cover in the USA. Bizarre.

Wikinews have an "article" on the situation

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UK_ISPs_erect_...ensor_Wikipedia

Edit: And, apparently, the secure server is being blocked by at least one ISP:

...
The ISPs have been trying to convince the UK government that they are tough enough to self-regulate without government interference. This makes them look tough, whilst the WMF comes out smelling of kiddie porn. If anyone thinks that blocking the UK will force the ISPs to back down, they are so wrong. Wait for the ISP PR departments to kick in with "the lengths that the WMF will go to defend offensive images, we responsible ISPs have taken appropriate action."

Words like "naked" "images" and "child" will make rational debate impossible - and make people assume that the WMF is simply evil...

I thought the UK were generally more liberal when it came to these "edgy" album covers... for example, that notorious Blind Faith album was released as-is in the UK, but with a completely different cover in the USA. Bizarre.

The UK are generally more liberal, but anything remotely hinting at child pornography is a big no no. Even the implication of looking at child pornography in the UK will result in becoming a social outcast, no matter whether you can prove your innocence.

That was in the 1960s.

The UK is a fucking horrible police state now. Americans seem to have more rights than UK citizens do.

That was in the 1960s.

The UK is a fucking horrible police state now. Americans seem to have more rights than UK citizens do.

Next we're going to be talking about how the UK is overrun by chavs and if it was America they'd all be shot or something if I know how political discussions about the UK go.

I had to look up chav on Wikipedia! It's a slang that would not even be understood in the US, where the translation would be (gang)banger or homie or something.

How did the UK get to be a police state if the Irish troubles didn't do it to you, and you had no 9/11?

Was it maybe your obscession with public video survailance and so on? You're far ahead of even the US, there (though I do not doubt that everything seen in the UK in that direction, is coming to us).

Next we're going to be talking about how the UK is overrun by chavs and if it was America they'd all be shot or something if I know how political discussions about the UK go.

They had July 7, 2005.

50 deaths is no reason whatsoever to pass new laws infringing on the privacy of ordinary people.

This is very bad for the Foundation.....

...The amazing thing is ..... where are the Foundation's PR savy people now?