Talk:The Pirate Bay

.sx, still

It's still thepiratebay.sx. Until some RS says otherwise, let's just leave the TLD part of the URL alone.. --Lexein (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There are umpteen proxies of TPB, and quite apart from WP:EL, it is hard to tell how accurate a proxy is. It could be out of date or riddled with malware, or both.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious, since thee Domain keeps hopping, why not include thee Static IP: http://194.71.107.80/ as well? Bobwolfe23 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocking of Pirate Bay links by Facebook

I just read this page and was interested in the bit about Facebook blocking Pirate Bay links in private messages. I decided to send a link to my roommate so I could see it with my own eyes. However, he received a link to the home page, a link to a specific torrent, and a link to the specific torrent using .com instead of .sx. I also posted a link to my wall, and it was not blocked. Obviously, Pirate Bay links are no longer being blocked in all cases, but I can't seem to find a source for this out of all the stories about Facebook blocking the links. I doubt it would be kosher to just say "But it doesn't block them anymore according to rhollis7" at the end of the paragraph, so I'm leaving this here for someone to find a source. Also it's possible that I'm the only one who can see the link I posted to my wall, so it would be best to get a source on this. Rhollis7 (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The block started in 2009 [1] so it's not at all clear if Facebook kept up with the domain switches. Certainly doublecheck with your friend if that torrent link made it. --Lexein (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

.ac domain change?

It appears that TPB may have changed its domain to .ac in the last 24 hours (.ac is the top level domain for Ascension Island). There is nothing about this on the TPB Twitter feed or Facebook page at the moment, or in Google News. This may herald a new round of musical chairs over the domain. Some more sourcing is needed before adding this to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

TorrentFreak confirms the move [2] and also that this is unlikely to last long, because the island is one of the British Overseas Territories and the UK has blocked the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now .pe, as planned. --Lexein (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexa rankings

Don't handle domain change well; TPB is surely still in the Top 100 most popular sites, but the Alexa ranking for the OLD domain is currently like top 70,000. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

We might need to remove the Alexa rankings while domains are in flux. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather keep them with a note or a footnote, as in - last stable rankings, approximate current rankings (if those can be reliably calculated). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, Jimbo has said that Alexa rankings are not very accurate anyway, and that Wikipedia articles should consider using Quantcast instead. Alexa Internet rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, because they are only as accurate as the usage statistics of the people running the Alexa toolbar. The problem with Quantcast is that it is US based and does not give a worldwide picture. The Pirate Bay on the .sx domain was ranked at 73 global [3], making it one of the top 100 most visited sites in the world. Alexa currently says about the new .ac domain "We don't have enough data to rank this website". [4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

.pe → .gy

If the reason for waiting for a source to change .pe to .gy was perhaps because the evidently functional thepiratebay.gy site might be a fraud -- then why would we accept thepiratebay.gy as a source? (See Primewire, 1channel, and the other streaming sites which have gone through some funny business with [re]naming and hijacking). Not a big deal, since it's almost certainly legit -- but as a matter of best practice why wait at all if that's the case? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

TorrentFreak has confirmed the move.[5] However, given the way things are going, it won't be long before it all happens again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Both .org and .se resolve to a different IP address. 82.154.124.39 (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Just keep TDL at .org?

Since thepiratebay.org redirects to whatever url they're using at the time, should we change it to that? TPB will probably keep domain hopping for a while 5Celcious (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a neat idea, but people would keep adding .gy or whatever the actual domain was. Also, redirects are not encouraged as Wikipedia external links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• At the moment, typing thepiratebay.gy produces thepiratebay.se in the browser address bar, suggesting that domain masking is being used. It is all getting complicated, and the situation could change again at any time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And the site is now officially back at .se, having lasted just one day on .gy before being suspended.[6]. The Pirate Bay was never officially suspended from .se but decided on a change, possibly to prevent seizure or further legal action in the Swedish courts. Will the .se domain last the second time around? Watch this space...--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

https vs http in infobox, 2014

I just reverted this edit, which asserted http as the primary protocol with this edit summary: "(The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS.)"
Full disclosure: I have always favored https: in the infobox, but I went along with an old consensus to keep https: only in the body under its RS-sourced introduction. But when other editors switched to https: in the infobox (indicating a shift in consensus) as far back as January 2013, I silently supported the change. So now I revert its removal, defending the (now) status quo. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Added shift in consensus. --03:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was based on an analysis of WP guidelines, not on the fact that some editors want it changed. Why would you overrule the consensus? Frankly, the entire issue of the url has become farcical. It is clear that TPB is now a global pariah forced to constantly change its address. Why would WP go out of its way to aid an organization that goes against WPs officially stated respect for intellectual property rights? The obvious solution to the incredible number of edits to this one field in one infobox is to remove the field. Anyone can find TPB with any search engine, or the 47 other links in the article.108.41.173.242 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus can change by either discussion or editing. That old consensus apparently shifted more than a year ago. Even the most adamant opposers to HTTPS: in the infobox said and did nothing. We document; we don't go out of our way. We also don't censor. Importantly, there's a massive worldwide shift to HTTPS: by most major service providers and online services. And here at Wikipedia, there has been quite active discussion of using HTTPS: for all services which have advertised that protocol as their default or preferred or suggested access method, including YouTube, Yahoo, Internet Archive, and others. Why not for TPB? --Lexein (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not fussed either way, but there is a trend to use https in the infobox when it is available as an option. The argument that giving the https address is an aid to copyright infringement is not entirely convincing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As WP:Consensus says, consensus is not the result of voting and must respect WP norms. Yes, the majority of WP editors would like to see this change. They would also like to see the founders get the Noble prize. As for the question of TLS aiding copyright infringement, that is the TPB stated purpose for providing it.108.41.173.242 (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Mm, not sure you read the cited sources. They directly contradict the assertion you just made about "stated purpose". --Lexein (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the cited source that calls the Swedish government “the Swedish stasi-government”? Why would you consider for a moment using a source, and considering it serious, containing the Reductio ad Hitlerum suggestion that TPB is protecting people from Swedish government kidnappers and executioners? And that’s just the start. Read the WP article on the Stasi. Even taking Peter Sunde at his word, he is clearly stating that TLS was implemented to prevent the government from seeing what users were doing – which was violating the intellectual property rights of others according to the convictions. The article also states as part of the rationale, that the TPB servers were not in Sweden; also false, making his claim all the more absurd. This article really needs to stop taking the convicted TPB spokesman’s words as if his statements haven’t been repeatedly proved false and filled with hyperbole. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this one, too: "Pirate Bay bitchslaps Swedish law with SSL". You're making the same arguments as another insistent IP editor, that claims made here, supported by reliable sources, should be censored because of other things a rep of an organization says, and that doesn't fly here. You're letting your personal beliefs interfere with the functioning of this encyclopedia: documenting/summarizing per the WP:Five pillars, and trying to push your pov against other editors an changed consensus. --Lexein (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You have this dead backwards. Both sources use the same primary source, making it one source. And the cited sources only state that Peter Sunde made this claim, not that it was true. And that source was convicted of crimes and has been shown to be the farthest from a reliable source through years of disinformation. You're letting your personal beliefs interfere with the functioning of this encyclopedia: documenting/summarizing per the WP:Five pillars, and trying to push your pov against other editors who had this discussion and came to a consensus. Not a vote, a consensus. Seriously, the refs in this article nearly all point back to the people convicted of crimes and other anonymous sources. This article is an extreme example of how not to use good sources and an embarrassment to WP.108.41.173.242 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, let us look at another accusation that you made. That my edit suggests “censorship”. Look at the last edit. It deleted the warning: “The Pirate Bay is not a safe torrent to use because it contains files that has malwares,trojans,worms,spywares, and other viruses.” Does anyone deny that this is a true statement? It is well-known that TPB has dangerous downloads. It is well-known that they have stated that they will not remove torrents. Yet, this important warning was censored by Wikipedia to the detriment of unknown numbers of possible victims. I can’t even access TPB without overriding my mainstream security software because of the reported problems. So, it is OK to remove a warning that downloading from the site can cause you massive damage. But, it is “censorship” to remove the “s” from one of the 42 urls in the article pointing to TPB, even though this in NO WAY impedes access to the site. In fact, Google uses the non-TLS link and it works just fine. This is a prime example of the hyperbole used here by the apologists for convicted criminals at a site declared illegal by the Swedish government. Has Wikipedia coated TPB with Teflon?108.41.173.242 (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to be interpreting WP:RS correctly. "Two" (actually quite a few) reliable published sources read, verified, interpreted, and provided their own commentary on a primary source, so we have two very widely published reliable sources supporting the claim made in the article (which if you read the claim made, is unremarkable). Whatever else you say, that's what is going on here, full stop. You haven't successfully argued for removal of https at all. --Lexein (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So, these sources are arguing that the Swedish government is like the Easy German Stasi and that Swedish law was “bitchslapped”? Are you seriously claiming these to be “reliable sources” with such absurd hyperbole? Do you believe that the Swedish government is comparable to the Stasi? Do you believe Swedish law has been “bitchslapped”? Whatever else you say, that's what is going on here, full stop. You haven't successfully argued for addition of https at all. That is, your unilateral reversal of consensus. You have just decided, on your own, that consensus has changed despite a complete lack of discussion. You don’t seem to be interpreting WP:Consensus correctly. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Gainsaying and rhetorical badgering is not argument, nor defense of your position. Discussion isn't mandatory for consensus to be seen to have shifted. I've made my points without namecalling and false accusations, so I'm done, until others enter the discussion. --Lexein (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right: "Gainsaying and rhetorical badgering is not argument, nor defense of your position." So, why do you keep doing it? From early on in this "discussion," you have accused me of pushing a pov, interfering with the functioning of this encyclopedia, censoring, using my personal beliefs, and now gainsaying and badgering, while failing to debate what I am saying or giving any reason for ignoring the consensus. Of course discussion is mandatory for consensus to be seen to have shifted. The editors came to a consensus. And then, you just unilaterally stated that it changed. I am not trying to make a change and have nothing to defend. It is you that made a change violating a consensus. But that is typical of these pages. Consensus is reached, and then ignored.108.41.173.242 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, per the five pillars, and WP:BLP, you were bold, I reverted based on apparent consensus lasting over a year, and now e discuss. You've failed to prove your case that the infobox should not include HTTPS, and there's obviously no consensus to let stand your opinion-based, non-policy-based, non-practice-based change back to HTTP. Unless you can really convince anyone to agree with you, with your "Wikipedia should" and "Wikipedia shouldn't" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, just stop edit warring. --Lexein (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This is hopeless. First, what the Hell does this have to do with WP:BLP? Absolutely nothing. Second, I was NOT bold – you were. You made an edit in violation of WP:consensus which I reverted after you left the discussion with no change in consensus. You are the one trying to change a consensus that was reached based on your opinion-based, non-policy-based, non-practice-based change, and you failed. I am debating the agreed-upon status quo. The original consensus stands, despite your claim that it somehow changed and that this is somehow known without any discussion. You are now actually threatening to have me thrown off of Wikipedia. Seriously, your only argument is that you somehow know that consensus has changed, ran out of insults and accusations and have now, unable to defend your desired change, dropped to the level of threats. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted twice and you reverted three times, in violation of WP:3RR. Then you have the gall to put an edit-warring template on my talk page for your violation. That’s hilarious.108.41.173.242 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion paused while Lexein filed an ew complaint against me including false accusations that I had used two IPs to revert. The ew was closed with a result of no violation. SO, where we stand is that Lexein has made a change contrary to a previous consensus. He has stated that a consensus can be changed simply by editing without discussion. He has further stated that he will no longer participate in this discussion with me. Any suggestions on how to proceed?108.41.173.242 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)