On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
No system is perfect. You asked for something better.
I'm still waiting.
So they're fine for the common case. This
isn't a common case.
Which is why we have a registration process for these people. It still sucks.
I didn't know that, nor do I think it matters.
The point is, you (or
Ah. Well that explains a good bit. :) The proxies that don't send XFF
are soft-blocked. There is a process to request an account using
toolserver which can see the users real IP because the toolserver is
not censored. Once you have an account you are free to edit.
someone) was trying to put the blame for the blocking
of editors solely on
the policies of the IWF, and that is completely misleading.
Solely the IWF? No. The IWF is at fault for blocking the article
rather than the image. The ISPs are at fault for not sending XFF.
XFF is the standard required behavior for transparent proxies.
Stripping XFF when you do not prepend yourself is a "MUST" behavior,
yet some of the proxies are not doing that. The ISPs are not RFC
We are doing the best we can to mitigate harm by having a procedure to
create accounts (although painful) and still allowing editing from
those IPs (although not 'anonymous'). The same can not be said for
many of the other involved parties.
Actually, their policy is to block the image and the
page on which it
Can you cite this to anything other than some mumbled comments in an
interview? As far as I can tell IWF only claims to block "possibly
illegal" materials, and I'm not aware of anyone arguing that the
article text is possibly illegal. If they did it would add a rather
nice book-burning wrinkle to the whole issue.
They screwed up on blocking the image, although that
accidental and caused by another nonstandard practice of Wikipedia - having
text pages that end with .jpg.
It's simply a question of technical competence: To someone with
reasonable technical competence the Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg page is
very clearly not the image itself (as it has all that user interface
stuff on it). I don't doubt that it's an error, but it's one they've
been informed of since Sunday (and yes, they had a human addressing
this on Sunday) and has not been resolved.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
It's unclear to me how widespread the distribution
of this album cover is in
the UK. Amazon UK doesn't seem to have it. Just how easy is it to find?
Amazon.co.uk did until Monday morning. And we have reports of it being
in high street record shops. It's also widely available on the
internet in general.