Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 7

Going soft on crime
This article pays insufficient attention to the criminal nature of stealing intellectual property. Does the word "censorship" accurately apply to a crime-fighting measure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.123.145 (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [WP:FORUM] hat removed. Although the topic title may sound forumish, the use of the word “censorship” is a valid question and appears to be stated with the intent to improve the article. Closing a discussion that has yet to take place makes no sense. If an art gallery, pawn shop or street-seller is shut down for selling forgeries or stolen goods, do we use the word “censorship”? Its use here appears to be designed to make convicted criminals look like the victims. In fact, the article contains a quote by Sunde stating that calling this censorship would make it “very difficult to stop the site”. Ironically, a more accurate example of censorship might be the attempt made to close this topic. This is an WP:NPOV issue. Objective3000 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I give in that I might have been to trigger happy here. I found this too forumish because the IP was mere complaining about the article and not stating on how it could be improved . I do remember A Quote from Sunde where he said he was unhappy that they were profiting from sexual advertisement (bc who else wants to advertise with TPB). From the Censorship article Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions it can be assumped that the use of the Word censorship isn't a full out NPOV (bc the governments decide what is a criminal activity)  issue. You are however free to propose other synamouns. (Blockings would be a more neutral word but I can't figure out how that can be rephrased to fit the heading. Avono (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * TPB is NOT in a gray area. All of the founders were sentenced to prison and all appeals lost. This has been settled by the courts. It really is time to stop claiming that we’re not sure they broke the law. They are most certainly NOT as guilty as Google. Google has been brought to court many times, and has obeyed court orders. Google obeys DMCA complaints. OTOH, TPB thumbed its collective nose at complainants and posted the complaints with childish responses saying they would never comply. In any case, Google founders have not been sentenced to prison. What matters is what the courts say, not our opinions.


 * The section on censorship actually uses the word block repeatedly because that is the word used in nearly all the refs. The topic title should reflect that instead of using a biased term. I suggest “Access blocks” or some other form of the word be used instead. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC).
 * Will be changing it to "Domain Blockings" until someone objects to it Avono (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Looks more encyclopedic. Objective3000 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Does the word "censorship" accurately apply to a crime-fighting measure? - Yes exactly, "censorship" is by definition a crime-fighting measure; applied in every country based on what local laws consider to be crime.--Der Golem (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If any government of any country blocks any internet content, it falls under the category of internet censorship, no matter of what the content of the website is, with no exceptions. If any government blocks The Pirate Bay, it is the same as when any government blocks YouTube, because Wikipedia is not supposed to represent values of any country or ideology: to prevent a systemic bias. To say that blocking of TPB is not a "censorship" because of the fact that the website founders were jailed is the same as saying that if a book is banned in some country, its not "censorship" becuse the writer was jailed (for whatever reason). Whether the reasons for any kind of imprisonment are right or wrong is subjective matter of ethics that vary in different cultures, jurisdictions and individuals.

"Domain Blockings" refers to one specific action of what the ISPs were ordered to do by the courts (governments/countries), which decided to "censor" the website; therefore "block" is weasel wording for what generally happened. Wikipedia should pick neither the side of TPB, nor the side of some specific jurisdiction; and state the facts as they happened: TPB founders were jailed for an actual crime, "assisting copyright infringement"; and, the website got "censored" in some countries and subsequently "blocked" by ISPs.

Besides all that, the section also describes censorship by Facebook and Microsoft - deleting user pages, content filtering, i.e. other forms of "censorship" that are not "domain blocking" or "blocking" at all.--Der Golem (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting "opinion". Objective3000 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refrain making satirical comments as they are not constructive. I think we should move this to WP:NPOVN in order to gain opinions from uninvolved editors. As I said above the word "censorship" does not infer wither the censored material is good or bad. Even the New Zealand goverment uses censorship in this context: The Department of Internal Affairs’ inspectors undertake the role of investigating New Zealand Internet websites and newsgroups and enforcing censorship legislation. Avono (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting "opinion"? If that is your entire answer, why bother undoing my edit if you're not trying to defend the opposite view, nor discussing at all? As per sourced definitions provided by Avono, "censorship" is a neutral juridical word describing exactly TPB's condition; while "blocking" is misleadingly inaccurate for summarizing the actual content of the entire section.--Der Golem (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly my entire response. I already discussed this at length. "Censorship" is also misleading for the same reason. And why didn't you discuss before reverting? Censorship is a loaded term pushing a POV that brings up images of book burnings. It implies control of speech and ideas. No one is stopping TPB from saying anything they wish. Indeed, it could be argued that TPB interfered with the ability of artists to control their own works, and therefore continue their own abilities to spread ideas. So, we could say TPB censored artists. But, we’re not here to argue one side or the other. We are not here to push a POV. Loaded terms that imply, in most people’s minds, thoughts of autarchy should not be used. Objective3000 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * When you censor something, it is banned from public consumption. None of the material linked to by TPB is banned from public consumption. You can get it from the distributor. Objective3000 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * All your aguments only point out that TPB founders commited a crime, according to Swedish courts. Everyone knows and accepts that fact and it changes nothing in this discussion. The reason why TPB blocking is called censorship is because it censors people from sharing data the way they want. Repeating that it is copyright infringement is talking apples when the discussion is about oranges.
 * As Avono clearly explained, censorship by definition does not infer whether the censored material is good or bad. If you only associate censorship with book burnings, then it is you personal view that does not match the meaning of the English word.
 * The ethics of file sharing are not up to Wikipedians to decide. Please stick to sourced definitions.--Der Golem (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * First, censorship by dictionary definition absolutely does imply whether the censored material is good or bad, and using bold characters does not change this. Look up the origin and history of the word. Read the OED definitions. You are the one iserting your feelings about ethics by using charged words. Second, the general public also infers this. Third, the material is absolutely still available, and therefore not censored. Censorship states that the work is suppressed, not that you have to pay for it. The fact that some people don’t wish to use the legal distributors does not make it censorship. Some people would rather buy car parts at half-price from car thieves. That does not mean that shutting down chop shops is censorship. Question is, why do you insist on using a loaded word when the English language has such a rich variety of neutral terms? Objective3000 (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your lengthy explanations are original research. Please respect consensus and sources--Der Golem (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Relying on dictionary definitions of words is NOT OR. Objective3000 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claims are unsourced. "Censorship" is used in the context of copyright infringement or other crimes by mainstream press (example) as well as governments (example). You can also find Wikipedia consensus that "censorship" is routinely, extensively and specifically used in this context; for example: Internet censorship in the United Kingdom and Internet censorship in the United States. Note that if you keep editing against the consensus, you risk being blocked.--Der Golem (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You’ve proved my points yet again. The first link you point to is simply using the term used by, here it comes, TORRENTFREAK. You are being led around by the nose by TF. The second link you point to talks about REAL Internet censorship. The total list of offenses are: exploitation of children or young persons for sexual purposes; use of violence or coercion to compel any person to participate in sexual conduct; sexual conduct upon the body of a dead person; use of urine or excrement in association with degrading or dehumanising or sexual conduct; bestiality; acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty. NOTHING is said about piracy. I never said censorship doesn’t exist. I said that blocking sites that violate intellectual property rights is not censorship. The link you provided shows that piracy is NOT on the list of censored material. The rest of your links point to Wikipedia articles that are also wrong. You can’t justify an edit in one WP article by using another WP article. Ironically, the threat you made against me at the end sounds like actual censorship. The simple fact is that you are pushing a POV and threatening me with censorship because you don't like what I'm saying.Objective3000 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR--Der Golem (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CIV When you can't respond, make a snide remark. Objective3000 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Der Golem, Your last threee edits included a threat, a pointless snide remark, and a template designed for articles, not talk pages. Please discuss in a civil manner.Objective3000 (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Type into google "pirate bay block Censorship -torrentfreak -freak". You will exclude any article that as much as mention TF or the word freak, or that has a link to an article which talks about it. If you want to go even further, add -browser to exclude the story about the pirate bay browser. No matter how much you try to avoid it, you will still end up with third-party reliable sources, posting articles that talks about about the pirate bay blocks in the context of Censorship. I really could go on and on and on with more examples, or do more refined google searches (using the word censor rather than Censorship), or do searches through books on internet censorship and find pirate bay mentioned there, and research papers on the world state of censorship, and so on and so on. No matter the pilling evidence that news article and technical experts in the field describes Internet blocks as censorship, they do not seem to have an effect in the discussion here. At some point, if you can't get anyone to agree with your views, continuing relentlessly is just disruption. Wikipedia has noticeboards if you want to continue, and I would ask you to use them. Belorn (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * cnet talks about the tool used in the block, describing it as the "Web censorship switch".
 * theguardian describe how Google accused Hollywood of attempting to “secretly censor the internet” by reviving the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) to enable wholesale site-blocking.
 * ibtimes publish statements from T-Mobile and KPN, suggesting the entertainment industry should fight piracy with new business models rather than online censorship.
 * electronista reports that the duth court found during the hearing that the blocks were both ineffectual and unnecessary censorship.
 * EFF, has an article talks about a Proposed HTTP Error Code to signal Internet Censorship, and uses the pirate bay blocks as the primary example.
 * This is now the third time that I have been threatened with censorship for having an opinion on censorship. Don't you people see the irony in this? Go right ahead and ask an admin to block me for making civil arguments on a talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion is going nowhere. You've expressed your point of view, and it seems that others disagree. More discussion is only going to lead to more dissension. Let's end it here. Dodoïste (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been personally threatened (not here) by someone at TF. I have been threatened with censorship here repeatedly. I can no longer afford to speak my opinion here . The Wikipedia censors have won. The convicted criminals can say anything they want. I can’t. If you understand what the word “censorship” means and why it is so important, you will understand it has to do with the concept of speaking of ideas and beliefs. In absolutely no manner has TPB been halted from speaking about their ideas and beliefs. In no way whatsoever. But, I have been threatened, time and again, to stop speaking my ideas on threats of, now, topic banishment at WP, and worse from TF. The people here are the censors that can’t stand any criticism of convicted criminals. Isn’t irony ironic? Objective3000 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened to you at TF, but it's off topic. Here at Wikipedia no one is threatening of censorship. It's quite the opposite actually. You've not only been allowed to express your opinion. You've been allowed to repeat the very same opinion time and again, and editors engaged in debates with you. That's not my definition of censorship. We've heard your opinion, and we would like to focus the discussions here on other topics, or listen to other points of view.
 * It is like a person appearing in a TV debate one day, and allowed to share his point of view. Let's imagine this person is invited a few more times on TV, and he express exactly the same point of view. The TV producer might say "We don't want to have you in our debate anymore, we want to invite someone else. We want to have other points of view in our show." That's not censorship.
 * There are some implicit rules and ethics about wiki discussions. If others disagree with you, you have to accept it and move onto something else. Dodoïste (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Belorn suggested that an admin be asked to "topic ban" me, even though I've violated no rules. That sounds like censorship to me. Of course I have responded to arguments including refs that don't say what editors claim they say. And I have done so in a civil manner and violated no rules. That's what a discussion is for. The fact that you don't agree doesn't make it wrong for me to state my case. And if someone else yet again comes up with new bad refs, why shouldn't I respond to them? In one discussion, some time back, one of the editors in this thread, not gaining concensus, took it to a noticeboard. Lost, took it to another, lost, took it to a third. Now THAT is an example of failing to accept and move on. No one suggested that he be sanctioned. Objective3000 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think an admin can decide by himself to "topic ban" anyone or on a single user's request. And it should not happen this situation where other solutions can still be found.
 * On the other hand. a behavior that does not violate any rules is not necessarily a good behavior. Does your behavior produces a good teamwork ? Are you trying to collaborate with us in order to improve the article ? Or are you trying to prove others wrong ? Do you provide references and material to support your claims, that can be used in the article ? Dodoïste (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. No, an admin cannot topic ban someone on his own. But, this is the third suggestion that I be blocked because people don't agree with me. Yes, I am trying to improve the article and be constructive. Editors are making the claim that blocking TPB is censorship. The Oxford English Dictionary disagrees. The NZ definition of Internet Censorship reffed by another editor here disagrees. I am not making a claim. I am asking for a claim that is wrong to be modified to use NPOV language. The language that has been used by governments and courts when enacting these domain blocks, not the metaphors and inflammatory words used by TPB/TF and blogs. Why wouldn’t we use the actual words of the bodies that ordered these blocks? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog shading the commentary. I have responded to editors showing refs. My responses are met with insults “We are not here to teach you to read”, snide remarks “TLDR” and threats of actual censorship. Objective3000 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I was not assuming good faith I would not be writing to you in such manners. It is useless to repeat what you have written several times already. I can read your previous posts just fine. Editors did not agree with you when you wrote it earlier, why would they agree now ? Dodoïste (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was responding to different editors with different refs. Look, aren't they repeating the same things over and over? Talk to them. This page has been a problem for years. Many editors flat-out refused to accept the fact that the founders were found guilty after they lost case after case. They kept claiming that the judges were all corrupt. Took quite a while to get accusations of judicial corruption out of the article with the same long repetitious discussions. Now they do what they can to make it look as though TPB are victims. The article even includes a disgusting image that depicts copyright holders with bags of money taking pictures of cute kittens away from children. Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are convinced that your behavior is perfect, I can not help you. By the way, the image you are talking about has a lot of historical significance, and is well know in the debate about copyright and so called "loss of profit" for the entertainment industry. Dodoïste (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting words in other people’s mouths is one of the methods of dishonest debate. I never said I was perfect, and you know it. And, I don’t need any “help” from you. The image was on TPB for ONE DAY and has no historic significance whatever. It was created by a pro-piracy person a couple years ago. You are not at all helpful to the situation. This article needs a great deal of work to become encyclopedic. A handful of editors have resisted any NPOV language for years. It is an embarrassment to an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, most of the editors that built this magnificent site have left. We are left with people pushing POVs. POVs like any copyright holder is a fat man sitting on bags full of gold that steals from children. And I am not even allowed to place a template on the site asking for better references, when 90% of the refs either directly link or link back to one extremely biased blog with a direct connection to the convicted criminals that run the organization that is the subject of this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia article or a blog echo?
The source of this article now contains “torrentfreak” 261 times. TorrentFreak is a two-person blog that editorializes in nearly every post and bases the majority of its posts on anonymous sources. Time and again, statements have been made in this article that came from TF that later had to be removed as they were simply outright fabrications from TPB (maybe, who knows) passed on to TF, passed on to Wikipedia. This article is starting to look like an RSS feed from a blog that is extremist in its views and unreliable in its claims. The result is that Wikipedia has repeatedly published false info from tricksters. Why doesn’t this embarrass WP editors? Objective3000 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been policing the article lately. In the past, whenever I put anything from TF in, I made sure for the most part to have other sources supporting the claim. If you check the Talk history, you'll find dozens of times where I advised against putting dramatic TPB news in that was only sourced by TF. I agree that things sole-sourced to TF should be vetted; uncontroversial statements could arguably stay, but controversial, or claims likely to be challenged, should be removed until multiply-sourced. BTW, TF is, by WP's RSN, considered reliable because of topic expertise and longevity, BUT is to be used with care to stay away from editorialized claims. We use lots of editorializing sources, just not the controversial parts, and quite frequently quoted, and not paraphrased. I agree with some of your concerns, but would prefer not to swing the other way, toward self- censorship of facts sourced to knowledgeable sources. So, to answer your question, no, there's very little to be "embarrassed" about. If editors make mistakes, we correct and educate, we ideally don't shame them by saying they should be "embarrassed". And I don't think it should be your position to be shaming other editors. As I like to say, we document, but do not serve. --Lexein (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC) amended "censorship" to self-censorship --04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TorrentFreak is regarded as the most knowledgeable source about torrent sites, and is often quoted by the mainstream media. However, it is a good idea to take publicity material given out by torrent sites with a healthy pinch of salt. TPB is a good example, because it has said things in the past which were probably spoofs or propaganda.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Couple years ago, I was in a meeting. Someone was talking about the importance of Twitter as a source of info. As an example, he pointed out that Twitter was the first to report that some baseball player was rehired. I pointed out that the report turned out to be dead wrong. He responded “But, it was first”. Is that what an encyclopedia aspires to? To be first, not correct? Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was about the reliability of TorrentFreak as a source, and how to use this source correctly. What is the link with "being first" ? Aren't you off topic ? Dodoïste (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TF is always first, and very often wrong. But, it is used here far more than any other source. And, as a result, this article has contained a great deal of nonsense. The only reason TF is considered RS is that there aren't any other sources. So, WP uses secondhand anonynous sources and somehow feels comfortable that it's doing its job according to its rules. Objective3000 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with how we use TorrentFreak bring it to WP:RSN; note that many sources use TorrentFreak as a primary source, should we not be using them as well? I agree that TorrentFreak shouldn't be directly linked to but sources that link to them shouldn't fall into the same criteria. Avono (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, actual reliable sources say things like "According to..." or TF claims". They don't state something and have a footnote to TF or a footnote to someone that merely says TF said something. Secondly, going to RSN is pointless. The very large number of anti-copyright editors will come out of the woodwork and claim TF is more reliable than the dictionary. Wikipedia has an enormous blind spot when it comes to this subject. The continuing misuse of the term "censorship" is a prime example. Objective3000 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I amended to self-censorship above. --Lexein (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "disruptive" about placing a needs additional citations template on this article considering that such a huge number of refs trace back to one blog throughout the entire article. A blog that uses anonymous sources. What's "disruptive" about asking for a larger variety of sources? Objective3000 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * because tagging the entire article is not constructive at all, I am fine with tagging sections that only source TorrentFreak but tagging everything is disruptive because they are sections that are not sourced from TorrentFreak. Avono (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I should tag nearly every section, including the lede? It's the article that has the problem. Objective3000 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated previously, it would be better to raise this at WP:RSN. I don't have a problem with uncontroversial statements sourced to TorrentFreak, but it does need to be used with caution for "hot off the press" stories.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be solved here. It will NOT be solved at RSN. Meanwhile, it was incorrect to remove my template and would actually be "distuptive" if I added multiple copies of the template as suggested. (At least we are no longer claiming that TPB is hosted in the Riksdagshuset.) Objective3000 (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, if this were taken to RSN, and by some chance, they ruled correctly, this article would pretty much have to be scrapped. Objective3000 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Last time Objective3000 complained about TF sourced statement, I took a 30 second google search and added 3 sources from large reliable news papers. Yet again, here Objective3000 are, complaining, without doing the minimal effort in order to improve the article by adding more sources. See the lead? It mention that proxies was created after the site got blocked. Let me type the words "pirate bay blocked proxy news" and see how many news paper has written about it. The result in the first half of search result lists articles by bbc, PC magazine, independent, and the theguardian. This talk comment took more time and more effort to write, than it took to add more sources for the statement in the lead. If Objective3000 only goal here is to push his personal POV onto the article, then I for one has no intention to continue humor his "concerns". Belorn (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You just proved both my points. You added three refs. But, if you read those refs, they all say things like "According to TorrentFreak" Or, "Sources reported by TorrentFreak". They all go back to the same "source" that uses anonymous sources. And, as respected journalists, all use qualifiers that show these are only claims. You first accuse me of not adding anything and then accuse me of trying to add a POV. Make up your mind. I don't even know what point of view it is you think I'm trying to add. Objective3000 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, you will note that none of the refs you added called the TPB blocks "censorship". It is not censorship. This is a false claim made by TPB, TorrentFreak and Wikipedia. Objective3000 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not our job to teach you how to read an article. Neither of the news article attribute the statement about proxies to TF, and the guardian article do not even mention TF anywhere in the article. You seem to be disillusioned that as soon a news article mention TF, then suddenly the whole article MUST be based on TF. And incidentally, the statement those sources support do not include many things. They don't include the word grape juice, or james bond, world peace, cyborgs. Incidentally, that doesnt mean anything. Also incidentally, 'Censorship creep': Pirate Bay block will affect one-third of U.K. clearly do not talk about censorship, or techdirts article UK High Court Expands Censorship Regime: Orders The Pirate Bay To Be Blocked. I am sure that you also don't see the word censorship being used by the guardian with their: "PirateBrowser was designed to help people access The Pirate Bay and other torrent services even if they were blocked by their ISP, while also circumventing other kinds of internet censorship in countries including Iran and North Korea.". Clearly, no such articles exists and you are clearly thus not trying to push your POV into the article. Belorn (talk) 07:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * First, you are conflating multiple issues in multiple sources. There is Internet censorship in North Korea which prevents the citizenry from reading pretty much everything. And then there are blocks of TPB to prevent violations of intellectual property rights. Both are mentioned in the articles. The word “censorship” is used to talk to N. Korea. But, the reliable sources use the word “block” when referring to the TPB site except when quoting TPB or TorrentFreak.
 * Second, the source you gave that actually uses the term “censorship” in referring to TPB (Techdirt) is a blog with only two paragraphs in WP. In fact, their headline referring to the UK gov’t as the “censorship regime” clearly shows they shouldn’t be used as a source.
 * Third, you are again accusing me of trying to push a POV. I ask again, what POV? I’m not trying to add anything. I’m trying to subtract an obvious POV.
 * Fourth, your opening line: “It is not our job to teach you how to read an article” is way out of line and I’m growing weary of your WP:CIV violations. Objective3000 (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * North Korea has a near total ban on Internet access. You need special authorization to access the Internet, generally for gov’t purposes. I think conflating North Korean Internet censorship and blocks of TPB seriously dilutes the use of the word “censorship”. Clearly, TPB and TF are trying to relate the two just as some people try to relate everything they dislike to Hitler (Godwin’s law). The two are not the same, and Wikipedia should stop using such a charged word bringing to mind centuries of disturbing history. Wikipedia is falling for this false comparison pushed by TPB/TF. TPB can and do say anything they wish. They have not been censored. Objective3000 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * you have obviously ignoring sources which do not fit your Point of View. The cited text above says: while also circumventing other kinds of internet censorship in countries including Iran and North Korea. It is a very simple English phrase to read.
 * you think an article title is conflating multiple issues, but has nothing to support your view on this. The system for blocking the pirate bay in UK, called Cleanfeed, is described by cnn as "the Web censorship switch".
 * I’m growing weary of you complains when multiple people have told you how to proceed. Either go to WP:RSN or do the work needed to find sources and then argue over statements which you can't find sources for doing. It takes 30 second google search for both statements you have so far objected to. If you go the RSN route, Have fun arguing if a self-describe blog with a editorial staff (techdirts) should be counted as primary source and not.
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources. If reliable sources uses TF and it passes their editorial control and fact-checking, then that statement is what Wikipedia defines as sourced by a reliable source. If you want to argue with the definition of reliable source, go to Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. As a hint, it is not defined as "only if it follows Objective3000 view of the world". Belorn (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "only if it follows Objective3000 view of the world". I will attempt to discuss with you again when you stop violating WP:CIV. Objective3000 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

To other editors, with the one issue of the use of the word “censorship”, all I am looking for is neutral language. Domain blocking is (NPOV) language. It is what is actually occurring. It is the terminology that respected sources use. It is unarguably correct. The word “censorship” carries heavy baggage and comparisons with North Korea are gross hyperbole. Domain Blocking pushes no POV whatsoever. Censorship clearly pushes a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally have six static IPs. North Korea has 1024 IPs for 25 million people. You can get 20 years hard labor, if you aren’t shot, for viewing the Internet in N. Korea. The vast number of citizens there have never heard of the Internet. I realize that some people think not getting free movies and games is some sort of great crime against nature. But, this is an encyclopedia. These refs to sites that compare blocking one source, that is in violation of property rights, to North Korea’s blocking of the entire population’s ability to see what the world is all about is…. I have no words. No speech has been blocked. No ideas have been blocked. This is not censorship. You are belittling the actual enormous crimes against humanity when you compare what is happening in North Korea, and what has happened elsewhere, to blocking sites that have been found guilty of property crimes. Use neutral wording. Do not create yet another corollary to Godwin’s law. Objective3000 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You guys win. Not getting free games is the same as what North Korea is doing to its citizenry. Objective3000 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocking a website is always censorship. "And then there are blocks of TPB to prevent violations of intellectual property rights" means that Wikipedia would be blocked by SOPA only because some people violated copyrights. Many people use file-sharing websites to share their own material. 85.240.153.57 (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not by definition. Blocking TPB in NO WAY stops AYNONE from expressing ANY opinion they wish. It's not relevant, but it also in no way prevents anyone from sharing their own material. They just need to use a legal site. Objective3000 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The new page (1 Day left)
On my page, the flag background has been removed and replaced with a picture of a phoenix, and a disabled Search Bar is back. Is this proof of TPB returning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imanton1 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll have to wait and see, and for sources to cover this. This screenshot shows the current situation. It looks OK, but none of the links work.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Can confirm the site is now back up and running completely correctly - all links work, search works, magnet links work, commenting works, etc. Thetonestarr (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re this edit: Yes, it's back again with all the links working, and looks the same as before. Now let's see what the reliable sources have to say.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

thepiratebay.se is back online
Jan. 31, 2015

As the subject line says, the phoenix has arisen. https://thepiratebay.se/156.34.54.221 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism & protection
Why hasn't this article been semi-protected? looking back to the amount of vandalism in the log of the page on 11 December 2014, semi-protection would've helped a lot, or even WP:PC --Walkman (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it was actually temporarily protected since this edit (been working through the log) (Edit: and here) --Walkman (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

May 2015 offline period
According to downforeveryone the TPB site is still offline, and according to media reports it is due to an improperly configured SSL certificate. This has been added to the article, but I left the status in the infobox as "online" for the time being, as this appears to be a technical problem. However, if it is not fixed by June, it should probably be changed to "offline".-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * TorrentFreak says that "The site is back for most people now". TPB has a new SSL certificate which may have caused problems for some browsers. Since the article has not been inundated with comments saying that the site is down, it looks like the problem is (largely) resolved.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

CloudFlare
The article now suggests that the use of CloudFlare by TPB hides TPB's real IP. While this is technically true, all you have to do is to ask CloudFlare via their abuse form and they will tell you the host. Objective3000 (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the claim that it hides the real IP. The sourced claim is from a CEO from Trabia Network, and no other news article about this has included it. What most other says is that the use of cloudflare makes IP blocking harder/impossible/impractical, which could be interpreted as hiding but leads to an incorrect conclusion. Additionally, TF reports a statement from the pirate bay administrators that CloudFlare is used for the explicit purpose of load balancing. Belorn (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, CloudFlare does not offer the sort of bomb proof and indestructible hosting that TPB claimed in some of its promotional material. The Swedish authorities were able to find the server computers in December 2014 regardless of the site's IP address.--'[[User:ianmacm| ♦Ian Ma c

M♦ ]] (talk to me)' 17:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to make this abundantly clear and avoid any perceived connection between CloudFlare and TPB that might have been implied by a biased source, CloudFlare is a legitimate content delivery network fronting over 1,000,000 sites, including NASDAQ and the NYTimes. There is no evidence that their purpose has anything to do with hiding IPs or illegal activity. That’s a side-effect of the way CDNs work. I once filed a complaint with them about a small site (not related to TPB or piracy), and they responded within an hour with the host’s name and contact info. This is just one more of a very large number of silly, dishonest claims, over years by TPB/TF that many people have fallen for. An encyclopedia should use better sources. Objective3000 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:ianmacm, just to correct a thing, the two links you linked has nothing to do with cloudflare as they were published before TPB started to use CloudlFare. The TF article about CloudFlare is this and the statement I referenced above was "“We have seen that there has been some question to why we are using Cloudflare. This is only initially to handle the massive load upon the servers. It will be removed shortly,”". There is an other article on TF about the blocking aspect of cloudflare here. TLD, the old cloud announcement and cloudflare are two completely separate events. Belorn (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that part of the problem is giving the impression that TPB is hosted like something out of a Bond movie, with a top secret and impenetrable lair. This has been shown to be wrong, and is line with previous claims about hosting the site from North Korea, airborne drones etc.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For the tech minded, TPB is hosted at 173.245.60.146 in California. However, as the December 2014 raid showed, the server computers are (or were at the time of the December 2014 raid) in Sweden.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * TPB is currently hosted in, or redirected from, Sofia, Bulgaria. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Rush to include
There appears to be yet another rush to include info, in particular urls, based on TF posts. TPB has made innumerable changes to their url as several governments have revoked the use of domains for illegal uses. As an encyclopedia, can’t we wait a couple months before adding domains that have a good chance of reversal? How many times has info been added to this article based on TF posts, later to be removed? Is this an encyclopedia, or a guide on how to violate laws that the WP Foundation states that it respects? WP:Recentism Objective3000 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We have heard your view that TF should not be used, or how this Wikipedia article is apparently only a guide on how to violate laws. Several times, over and over again as can be seen in the archive. At some point you got to drop that stick and focus on something else. Belorn (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not including valid domains simply because they "have a good chance of reversal" is WP:CRYSTAL. If the domain is valid, it should be added. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Belorn, I did not say that and you know it. And stop making false accusations and threats on my talk page. You have violated WP:CIVIL repeatedly over the last week. Objective3000 (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * its enough that you vandalized my talk page, you don't need continue here with the incivility. If you can't refrain yourself, I suggest taking a walk and calm down a bit. Belorn (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I in no way vandalized your Talk Page. That is a total fabrication. Your seventh WP:CIVIL violation is noted. Your snide, churlish remarks grow tiresome. Frankly, I have no idea why you are engaging in this long stream of personal attacks. Objective3000 (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And your eight is noted? Whatever game you are playing at, I am not participating in it. We can either focus on the content of the article, or you can continue the incivility and talk to yourself. Your choice. Belorn (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I have no idea what you are going on about or what you think I have done to you. I removed one word from the article ("immediately") that didn't belong, and it is still gone. You responded with a personal attack and have bombarded me with odd accusations and threats since. You can stop anytime you wish. Objective3000 (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, both of you stop arguing. This is not the place for it. If you want to argue, do it at recess down near the sandbox. When you're here you're supposed to be discussing how to improve the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. Tell him to stop making accusations and threats on my talk page and snide remarks in his edit summaries. We are all volunteers here and this is not acceptable.Objective3000 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Domains seized by Swedish court "causing the site to go offline"
According to independent, the domain name was sized by the court which brought down the site. Reading that, I found that very odd since the .se registry said on their news page that they were only in the planning phase for delivering the domain to the state, which is the normal procedure for court judgments. First there is a trial, then there is a appeal period, then the judgment become final if there is no appeal, and then finally actions are taken and the domain get transfered to the state.

And today the judgment got appealed. I can't see how it would be legally possible that the appealed judgment could cause the site to go offline. My guess is that the administrators went to work after the judgment which caused the site to be "down" while they switched to the new scheme of six random domains, but that is just a guess. A non-finalized judgment really should not possible to effect anything, so it all is a bit puzzling. Belorn (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The domains ares still redirecting and if that is the case I can't see how the domains were seized 7 days ago. As I understand it, at that time the domain owners had only heard that the domains were going to be seized and this seems supported by reliable sources that say the domains will be seized but the owner has until June 9 to appeal. If the domains had been seized they wouldn't still be be sending traffic to the new sites. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in the section above, there seems to be a rush to include info in this article from a source that uses anonymous sources and is often incorrect. I don't even see the purpose of discussing recent events until they hit an unbiased source. Objective3000 (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added this and went by what The Independent article said. Since the reliability of the TPB site has been pretty poor during May 2015 anyway, it is unclear whether the seizure of the .se domain caused a substantial outage.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This again becomes comical. As I understand it, Neij has initiated two suits. The first says the Swedish gov’t can’t take his domain. The second is a suit against the gov’t claiming that he has nothing to do with ownership or operation of TPB (which every level of courts in Sweden did not believe). Well, the second suit would seem to suggest he has no standing for the first suit. He is both claiming ownership and non-ownership in parallel suits. I have no POV on what is or is not true here. I have no POV on the current downtime. I don’t even care. To me, it just looks like silly games. But seriously, this article is about convicted criminals that have time and time made wild fabrications reported by an activist site and, often verbatim, repeated in an encyclopedia in WikiVoice. All I ask is that we treat this article like other articles in WP, and make suggestions on how to make it more accurate, without personal attacks from TPB supporters. It is about the encyclopedia, not about TPB. Realize how often WP has reported false information in this article, later removed. WP is being played. It is better to be correct than fast. Objective3000 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend and @♦IanMacM♦, do either of you object if I replace that source with a better one that do not include the "causing the site to go offline" statement? I suspect it is just a journalist that created conclusions when the site went down at the same day the court judgment was announced, but I prefer some support when ignoring one source in favor of an other. I know that the Swedish state media reported about the case, and the registrar for .se, and a preliminary search provided a few article in english that looked promising. Neither talks about the "causing the site to go offline" so one argument is that the statement is fringe. Belorn (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems here, it is not a major issue. The most important thing is that in May 2015 the .se domain was seized, and caused the site to move to five new domains.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wary about saying the "domains were seized" (i.e. past tense). The court certainly ruled that they were "to be seized" (future tense) but all evidence shows that they are still registered through Cloudfare. The domains are still redirecting to The Pirate Bay so they don't seem to have been seized yet, which backs up Belorn's opening post in this thread. I think that we need to report just what we have proof of, that the court ordered the domains be seized and that subsequently the site switched to using new domains. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fredrik Neij said that he would appeal against the ruling to seize the .se domain. The site has changed its domain as a result of this ruling. The Swedish language source is translated to English here Some of the English language coverage may not have been sufficiently detailed about what has happened.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the iis source. They are a bit too close to the dealing to be a perfect third-party, but they are also the people responsible for .se domains and thus can be considered experts regarding it. The court summery uses future tense, including a quote which says ".SE will follow the judicial decision once it gains legal force, and over the next few weeks we will determine the actions to be taken in practical terms,". Belorn (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Links (see also the thread at the external links noticeboard)
The list of links is... problematic. Leaving aside the fact that one of them has been coded deliberately to avoid the spam blacklist, which is never a good idea, the links themselves are sourced from an unreliable source and raise questions about contributory infringement. Wikipedia is not here to drive traffic to TPB, or anywhere else. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The same could be said about isoHunt, KickassTorrents etc. Not sure about the unreliable source theory, as these are the links that TPB itself has announced.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I expressed concern about the coded url at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and was told not to worry about it. Removal of the urls for the website would seem to violate WP:NOTCENSORED. The urls are all widely known urls used by the site, so they don't need the citation anyway. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If there is a problem with those pages, they should also be fixed. But, I don't think the refs compare with the attempts to add a list of links that have been designed to avoid the law or spam blacklists. Can you point to an announcement by TPB itself? Objective3000 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It was covered here after the site redirected although some people don't like TorrentFreak either. Other media sources have accepted that these are the official addresses. The main problem is making an exception for TPB as other torrent sites are doing very similar things.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And TF displays its bias yet again. Do other WP torrent site articles have a list of urls? Objective3000 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The decision of TPB to have five links after .se was seized is unusual. However, these are the correct addresses for the site unless anyone can prove otherwise. It is odd if attempts are made to blacklist TPB while ignoring other torrent sites. All or none is the most consistent policy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Most sites don't have a list of urls because they only use one. TPB is now rotating through 5 different domains. Right now it's thepiratebay.am but it changes. Hence the need to list all because they're all TPB's "primary" domains. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Has this argument been used in any of the other 4,887,818 articles in Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia bending over backwards to aide copyright violations -- the crime for which the founders of TPB were jailed? Objective3000 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and you're missing the point. Most organisations have a single, primary url. Some organisations have urls for individual countries but we don't include them. Instead we limit articles to the primary url used by the organisation. TPB is unique in that it no longer has a single primary url. It has 5. If the url changes tomorrow to thepiratebay.la, accessing thepiratebay.am (today's url) will redirect you to thepiratebay.la. No, Wikipedia is not bending over backwards. We can't resort to WP:OR and decide one of the 5 is the url. We have no option but to remain neutral and list all 5. Even if you don't like it, WP:NOTCENSORED still applies. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I resisted pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS after Mac's two attempts to use other stuff as an argument. I don't think it applies when you are making an argument that I have never seen anywhere in WP. And, I think it is you that are missing the point. The point is that WP appears to be making a very rare, if not unique, exception for one site to aide commission of the very crime for which the founders of the site were jailed. And, your snide remark at the end is uncalled for. Objective3000 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the current five link setup is ideal, but that is how the site is operating at the moment. The reason why the .onion link is unacceptable is that all links to .onion sites are blocked on Wikipedia. TPB is no more illegal now than it was ten years ago, so it is a bit odd to raise this after links to .org and .se were in the article for many years without comment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Poorly phrased. Sounds like you were saying TPB was never illegal. The fact that TPB has a problem because of its ongoing illegality and actions against them in numerous countries is their problem. I don't think Wikipedia should make an exception to accommodate their legal problems. Objective3000 (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * IANAL and do not make judgements of this kind. Let's stick to the sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The point is that WP appears to be making a very rare, if not unique, exception for one site to aide commission of the very crime for which the founders of the site were jailed." - Please remember WP:NPOV. As you say the founders of the site were jailed. The current management is not jailed and we have to remain neutral. This "exception" is necessary because we have a unique situation here, which I've attempted to explain above. If Microsoft or Apple did the same thing we'd be forced to list all of the primary urls. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your WP:LAWYERING aside, I am being neutral. Just pointing to lots of WP guidelines doesn't mean any of them apply. Please reread what I said. WP appears to be doing just what the founders did. This has nothing to do with the current operators (who remain anonymous). Microsoft and Apple do have multiple urls. But, only one is listed in each article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Purely as a comment, it is surprising that it took until 2015 for the Swedish authorities to boot TPB off the .se domain as it had been considered to be problematic long before this. Since we have all had our two cents' worth on this and are likely to go round in circles making the same points, this should be raised at WP:ELN.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The slowness of legal authorities is rarely surprising.:) I'll just add that multiple urls for a site are common. the Infobox_website template states that the url field contain "The most used URL of the website." Objective3000 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. The trouble is that all five appear to be in use and none is the most used.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you are being neutral. You're arguing something about this website based on people who are no longer associated with its day to day operations. Microsoft and Apple do not have multiple primary urls. The primary urls are microsoft.com and apple.com. That's the difference between them and TPB. The Wikpedia guidelines that I have referred to are all relevant. Referring to valid guidelines is not wikilawyering. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please reread what I said. You are still claiming I made an argument I did not make. Nothing I said violates POV. My POV is that WP should be neutral and not break the law. I don't know why you keep using the term "primary". It is not used in the website infobox template. You are inserting your own definition of the url field instead of using the one in the infobox guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reread what you've said and we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with "attempts to add a list of links that have been designed to avoid the law". It's not up to us to decide that is the purpose of the links. We are driven by guidelines that tell us what should and shouldn't be added and there is nothing preventing us linking to the website in the guidelines. You've asked Is Wikipedia bending over backwards to aide copyright violations and the answer to that is NO!. The guidelines don't prevent linking to a site that violates copyright, only linking to copyright violations (I've explained this further at WP:ELN). Your POV seems based on a belief that linking to the site is breaking the law and it's not. I've used the term "primary" to highlight the unique situation that we have with TPB. If you reread my posts you'll see where I explained Most organisations have a single, primary url. Some organisations have urls for individual countries but we don't include them. Instead we limit articles to the primary url used by the organisation. TPB is unique in that it no longer has a single primary url. It has 5. The infobox instructions don't actually provide a definition for url. The TemplateData is supposed to be based on the instructions but whoever added the TemplateData section has chosen to include The most used URL of the website which requires linking to 5 websites because they are all the most used urls. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is up to us to respect WP:ELNEVER. The website infobox template instructions specifically state "The most used url". Objective3000 (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to this elsewhere. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * On going to WP:ELN, I'll leave that up to the sysop who removed the links. Objective3000 (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I support removal of the links—if TPB has an official website it should be listed providing it does not illegally distribute someone else's work (WP:ELNEVER). If there is no official website, the Wikipedia article should not be used as a substitute to list information that should be on the official website (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, there is only only one official link—a strong consensus at WP:ELN would be required to make an exception for this article, and a local consensus among supporters is not sufficient. WP:NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with whether an article should feature several external links. Johnuniq (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TPB doesn't actually distribute anything other than magnet links and these in themselves don't violate copyright. They're just short text files. TPB does have an official website but it is hosted on five different, all equally used domains. Your statement the Wikipedia article should not be used as a substitute to list information that should be on the official website doesn't make a lot of sense. An official website's url isn't listed on the official website, it is the official website and TPB has five. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which I quoted at WP:ELN, does not say there is only only one official link at all. It says "normally" only one official link is included but then goes on to say If the subject of the article has more than one official website, which is the case here, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. The "very few limited circumstances" is rather vague because it doesn't specify those very few limited circumstances. Instead it says "Situations in which multiple official links are typically provided include". ELMINOFFICIAL (what a horribly confusing acronym!) further says it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information. As explained here and at ELN, TPB is unique in that its official websites are not all used at the same time. Instead the site cycles through them. Listing only one would require change the article every time the domain changes. Removing them entirely just isn't supported by any policy or guideline and seems supported by ELMINOFFICIAL, despite your claims. I'd strongly recommend you read the excellent posts at ELN by Dirk Beetstra. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Considering all the founders were jailed and lost all appeals, I think it’s time that we stopped saying things like: “TPB doesn't actually distribute anything other than magnet links and these in themselves don't violate copyright. They're just short text files.” Objective3000 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be better to start a separate thread about whether Wikipedia should link to torrent sites offering magnet links. There are too many IANAL issues when saying "site x is illegal."-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be a lawyer. The courts said TPB is illegal. The courts have never reversed that ruling. Therefore, it is still an active ruling. If TPB wants to have the ruling reversed due to any changes they may have made -- they would need to petition the court. Objective3000 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the founders are no longer involved with the site so you can't judge the current site based on them. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, that's like saying that Germany still sends Jews to the gas chamber because it did when Hitler was in charge. The ruling was against the site under the owners then, not the owners now. The site has been raided, but the present owners have not been charged and the site has not been shut down. If it was illegal, it wouldn't be operating. I'm afraid the facts don't support your opinion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The "fact" is that the court ruling both convicted the founders and ruled that the "site" itself was illegal. That ruling has not been reversed and is still in effect. The site is illegal under the law. It doesn't matter who runs it. Your apparent assumption that if a site is running it must be legal is absurd. And WOW is that ever an excellent example of the folly described by Godwin's law. Objective3000 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If lawyers were going to come galloping to Wikipedia with complaints about mentioning TPB or giving a link to the site, it would have happened by now. Numerous media outlets have done the same without problems, eg the Washington Post in this news article. WP:NOTCENSORED applies here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. There are no links in the WaPo article.
 * 2. I don't think the WaPo continually updates info on how to get to TPB, as this article been doing.
 * 3. WP:NOTCENSORED is overused as an excuse to add anything. Not everything needs to be added to an encyclopedia.
 * 4. WaPo has its rules and WP has its rules. Journalism in the U.S. benefits from extra protections. Objective3000 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The "fact" is that the court ruling both convicted the founders and ruled that the "site" itself was illegal. " - The point here is "was". That does not refer to the current site. There is no evidence that the current site is illegal. You really need to give up on this tack unless you can provide verifiable evidence that the current site has been declared illegal. In any case, it is not illegal to discuss something that is illegal and this has nothing to do with listing the sites urls. There is no policy or guideline preventing the listing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not add snide remarks to edit summaries. I'll explain again. The court ruled the site is illegal. That ruling has not changed. So, the ruling stands. The current site was raided last December and shut down by the Swedish Government. Eight weeks later it popped up in another location. A few months later, they had to move yet again. They are constantly moving and changing domains. The owners/operators are all anonymous. How much evidence do you need? How do you feel justified in proclaiming them to be legal, as you just did on the EL notice board? Objective3000 (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone living in the USA can access the TPB website, so the Washington Post had no problems with mentioning the domains. When a person visits the site, they are not doing anything illegal. Only downloading copyrighted material - which would require downloading torrent software first - would be illegal. Strictly speaking, nothing is legal or illegal on the Internet, as it all comes down to the laws of the individual countries involved, and where a person is living.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Strictly speaking, nothing is legal or illegal on the Internet" The operator of Silk Road was just sentenced to life in prison. Objective3000 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because he was a US citizen who violated US law. Raif Badawi also violated the laws of his country and is in prison.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally think your edits are better thought-out than many here. But, I think that comparison shows a strong political bias. Isn't it enough we've already had a mention of Hitler in this section? These kind of edits suggest desperation. Also, you do not need to be a citizen, or ever even in a country to be imprisoned. Kim Dotcom is currently awaiting extradition for a 72-page indictment on more similar charges than insulting Islam. Objective3000 (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can rely on me never to mention Hitler in a debate. All I have tried to point out here is that terms like "legal" and "illegal" do not strictly apply on the Internet. All we can do, through reliable sourcing, is to point out the rulings against TPB in various countries. These do not translate into the WP:OR statement that the site is illegal. This started off as a debate about WP:ELMINOFFICIAL rather than whether it is acceptable to link to sites with magnet links under any circumstances. As I have said before and will probably say again, if it is wrong to give a link to the TPB website then all of the other torrent websites (with the possible exception of Mininova) should go as well.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the words “legal” and “illegal” apply to the Internet. It is not a law-free zone. Calling a site illegal is not WP:OR when the courts ruled them illegal and shut down the site. It may very well be true that all such links should be removed. But, there is a difference. Numerous legal actions against TPB have taken place and their links are continually changing due to their legal situation. Objective3000 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

re: Please read the actual ruling regarding the founders of the pirate bay. the original ruling not the various machine translated English translations. It very clearly does not state that the site is/was illegal; rather that there was an overwhelming illegal use of the site. These are different conclusions. A quick Gnu searchshows legal use is there as well. Which is why the judgement specifically didn't state the the site itself was illegal. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course there was legal use also. That does not make the site legal. And yes, ruling the site illegal and ruling that overwhelming use of the site was illegal are two different things. Presumably, this is why Judge Norström specifically and separately stated both of these conclusions. In any case, the Swedish government shut down the site. Objective3000 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Short links
I accidentally reverted too far because it looked like one reference was doubled up. I created the solution of just showing the last portion of the domain names about a month ago, and I haven't seen anything on ELN or here, so I would have thought it accepted. To me this is a clear example of WP:NOTCENSORED, and since legal hasn't said anything I think the links could remain.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 00:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we really have no idea what TPB says as we have no idea who they are. It's all anonymous. And, it's not our fault that their violations cause constant changes to their circumstances. In any case, we should follow WP guidelines. Objective3000 (talk) 11:09 am, 23 July 2015, Thursday (11 days ago) (UTC+10)
 * WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is pretty clear, and NOTLINKS supports it. We're not here to maintain directories of links.
 * The discussions here and at ELN focused on whether or not we have any links at all. I believe that the consensus is that a link is acceptable. I don't see any consensus for more than one. The situation certainly doesn't fit our normal exceptions.
 * How about explaining it in a footnote? (Looks like this is being worked on as I type this). --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, that should work. The only problem is that if that one falls down there will be no link in the infobox. Some of their domains have been a little unstable, but I am willing to try this. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 00:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how the present situation is any "better" than what was there. Going from listing all links in the infobox to listing just one, arbitrarily chosen, link and sticking the rest in a note seems pointless reorganisation. Choosing just one of the official links for the infobox is also a bit ORish. With an organisation like Microsoft or Apple we have a clear indicator of the "main" domain, but The Pirate Bay doesn't list any domain over another so we shouldn't be deciding for them. At the moment, thepiratebay.se (which still has not been seized) is directing to the .la domain so that might be a better domain to list, but that could change. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I too like the previous situation better, this was simply an attempt. Also there is no policy, I thought that was clear after the circuitous above discussion . -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 01:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you mean by circuitous discussion. But, the guidelines are clearly spelled out in the relevant infobox article. This was all discussed at ELN. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Circuitous means going in circles. No, there is no guideline for when a page has multiple main addresses. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 02:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a guideline. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says Normally, only one official link is included. If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. It doesn't give an exhaustive list of what these "very few limited circumstances" just some examples, and since this site does have multiple official websites, it supports inclusion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I hadn't realized. Well if anything falls under limited circumstances I suppose this is it. I restored the links. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are violating WP:ELNEVER and consensus. What is the point of notice boards if they are continually ignored by the editors of this article? Wikipedia guidelines rarely use the word NEVER. They do in this case. Objective3000 (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus at WP:ELN. If you wish to change what has now become the stable version please start an RfC. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 10:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus was one link. The only reason it has been stable is because someone reverted a sysop's removal in violation of WP:ELNEVER and attempts to correct violations in this article result in threats. There is no point in starting an RfC as it will be ignored by the editors here, as usual. Objective3000 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there was consensus. Discussion was really all over the place and as I've already pointed out to CFCF, there really wasn't consensus either way. WP:ELNEVER was not mentioned when the links were removed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When the links were removed, the sysop said pending discussion at ELN. They were immediately put back as if the discussion didn't exist. No matter how strong a consensus would exist in an RfC, editors here will claim no consensus and ignore it, or will keep going to board after board. That is the history of this article. Objective3000 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The assertions about the lack of consensus aren't a problems, we'll just follow ELBURDEN and remove all that we don't have consensus to include. I do think one should stay though, and am not sure which that should be. --Ronz (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That completely ignores the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and to me it seems clear you are the one disregarding the clear lack of consensus. That version was stable for over a month, and contact with WMF-legal stated it was up to editor discretion to include the links. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As for which of the links to include it should be all of them, because the policy clearly states there are exceptions, and if this is not a valid exception then there would never be one, hence logically we should state all of them to follow policy. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we should follow EL instead. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This version is what I was hoping for. One official link (sadly arbitrary), and a note that says they are trying to maintain multiple websites that includes the references. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal of all the links are you just did is both disruptive and in clear violation of the BRD, I suggest you restore it immidiately. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ELBURDEN says, "Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard.Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."
 * As I said, I think there should be one link to meet ELOFFICIAL, but it seems we cannot find consensus for even that.
 * So you would like me to revert? Let me look though the history and see if I can find something that had a bit of consensus behind it before (or during) this mess. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First, he is following ELBURDEN -- disputed links should be removed pending discussion. Second, he is merely restoring it to the state after the sysop removed the links for the same reason. Third, you are proving my point that noticeboards are ignored by continuing a debate here after your position did not gain consensus at ELN. Further, you state that the addition of the links was "stable". But, the only reason they weren't again removed was to avoid an edit war. It is clear from the ELN discussion that there was no consensus for these links. Objective3000 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Look what I found. So CFCF has been edit-warring over these since 11:30, 13 June 2015. CFCF didn't participate in the ELN discussion at all that I can find, yet continued to edit-war and claim consensus. And it appears CFCF didn't start participating in the discussions here until yesterday?! How much oversite does this article have? Given the partial protection, do we have any admins watching it? I can't think of any ArbCom sanctions that apply. Are there? --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC
 * No I did not participate in the ELN discussion, but that seems unrelated. The ELN discussion was unproductive and did not give rise to consensus either way. I have chosen to engage here because certain users have chosen to interpret the lack of consensus as being in favor of their point. I merely state the the stable version best signals what is consensus and any changes should use it as the starting point for discussion. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So you simply choose to ignore EL and the ELN discussion? And all the other discussion? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but without partaking in the discussion it was clear that there was no clear consensus either way, especially as both discussions died down allowing the current version to stabilize. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 15:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep stating that the text stabilized. This is only due to your edit-warring. I suggest you stop making this specious claim. Objective3000 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't edited for a month. Anyway, now we have this RfC running which will hopefully end the dispute once and for all. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 16:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that some editors took the high road and refused to engage in an edit war does NOT suggest consensus. The only reason it was "stable" was due to your refusal to allow a change. The claim it was stable is a misrepresentation. Objective3000 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since nobody seems interested in doing so, I have opened an RfC below. The page has already been fully protected thanks to the very quick response of an admin at WP:RPP. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Very few people visit here that aren't strong fans of the subject of the article. Objective3000 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly the type of thing RfCs are meant to adress. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting that this edit repairs damage done in this edit by Objective3000. The specific damage was that my signature and part of my post was cut from one post and pasted over the top of CFCF's signature in an earlier post. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)