Talk:Virgin Killer

Sockpuppet removals?

WikimediaMosaicCapture.png

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

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

Every case where the image in the infobox has been replaced by WikimediaMosaicCapture.png is the work of the same person using sockpuppet accounts.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove Picture.

Not censoring vs. illegal shit

One thing is not being a censored encyclopedia and another is allowing Child Pornography (illegal in most parts of the world) to be used in your articles. I am truly disappointed and shocked.

• See the infoboxes at the top of the page. Also, let's look at the facts: No court in any country has ever ruled this image to be illegal. It is also widely available through a Google image search: [1]. Nobody is denying that the image is tasteless, but the article is intended to look at the historical context of the album.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • So then I think it would be cool to post blatant Child Pornography on the Child Pornography article, it would be for "general purposes"... yeah, I guessed not, huh? And I don't see the difference there and in this article, it is still a freaking child naked exposing her genitalia (CP according to the article here) on the goddamn cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.56.146 (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This argument suggests that you did not read the above comment fully. There is no child pornography on Wikipedia. RCA - a major company - allowed the use of this image on an album cover in 1976. Even the Internet Watch Foundation backed down after accepting that the image had a valid historical context. Nor would Google show this image in its search results if it was likely to be illegal. The image is used only for illustrating the article, and the WP:CONSENSUS is to keep it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Son... I am truly disappointed in the way they sometimes do things here, thanks for your attention, though. --201.166.56.146 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, our lawyer has been repeatedly notified of this image and has not instructed us that it is illegal. The "legality" part of this debate has been long since settled. ^Chillum 15:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is only one of many places on the Internet where this image is found. Google covers its position on images likely to offend with this general disclaimer about its search results.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is. Her nipples are blured out on the cover,(last time I checked, that's the legal criteria for breast exposer in most places) gentaila is coverd by the crack. so yeah. EDIT: on top of that, it doesn't even seem to be a real girl, that is that it appears to be a realistic drawing, not a photo of a real person on the cover. I know that here in the US,the legal satatus of sexual content of non-real underage persons is still bening debated. 64.197.3.194 (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The album has an alternate cover, so it would've made perfect sense to placed it instead of the controversial image. Something as simple as that could have avoided the mess in the first place. Have they no concept of common sense!--71.214.204.128 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that the controversial cover is part of the album's notability. We need to include it to fully inform our readers. Powers ^T 15:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There may have been a case to use the other image before the Internet Watch Foundation tried to block the curent imasge but their actiona actually made this image more notaible and relvent to the article. Ironically, they made removal harder.--76.69.170.230 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Virgin Killer for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I just want people to know that picture is child porn. The FBI is looking at it as a crime. I just wanted to let people know. I am sorry if I cause any problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs)