[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on The Pirate Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Prison sentences, second paragraph

From the second paragraph:

In April 2009, the website's founders (Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm) were found guilty in The Pirate Bay trial ... and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine. ... Founders Svartholm, Neij, and Sunde were all released by 2015 after having served shortened sentences.

This is confusing... they were imprisoned 6 years and this is a shortened sentence? The paragraph really needs to be rewritten. -Rolypolyman (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It often takes time before a sentence starts due to appeals or running. O3000 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 downtime

The Pirate Bay is Offline (2018)
Cloudflare error message. Don't panic.

Re this edit: The site's availability has been wobbly during the past week.[1] The TorrentFreak article says that this is due to the usual technical problems rather than the site going offline.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I came here to say something similar. The article says it's online, but it seems to be down. Is there a reliable source saying it's currently online? Benjamin (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Flakiest site on the 'Net. Appears up now. O3000 (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Up for me. However, it's common for the site to go offline for several hours, and this isn't worth mentioning in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Re this edit. It's back up again. Another brief (less than 24 hours) outage adding to the long history of unreliablity in TPB's hosting.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
And back again. When the site has problems it usually produces a Cloudflare error message. The most recent outage was a good few hours long but less than 24 hours as predicted. As the HTML note says, the status should not be changed unless the outage is at least 24 hours and covered in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Down

Looks like it's down since yesterday, per this the https version has been down since June 11 6:45 pm. Today there's Techworm.net confirmation. Brandmeistertalk 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The site is still available on Tor (anonymity network), which has been a feature of past outages. The .onion version seems to work even when the clearweb version is down. TPB's official Twitter page hasn't commented on why the site is down, and the outage is longer than usual. No panics just yet due to the long history of outages, but this needs watching.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
And it's back up. It was probably an issue with the Cloudflare hosting again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Re this edit: The best way to monitor the site's unpredictable hosting is at the status page. Yes, it's been down for over 24 hours on the clearweb , and the Tor version has been patchy as well, but it is up on Tor at the moment (I've checked this). The problem with saying that the site is offline is that it gives the impression that the site has gone offline permanently, which it hasn't because 2018 has seen the site up and down like a yo-yo. I'm sure that the site will return when they have hit the server cabinet with a hammer or whatever.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Another note: You cannot use sites like downforeveryoneorjustme as sites that use CDNs like Cloudflare should always appear up even if the server has exploded. O3000 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
And it's back. The outage this time has been nearly a week.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This has been talked about many times here but is the tor/onion link as found on its website piratebay.org not allowed anywhere on the pirate bay wiki page. Not in infobox. Not even in external links. I did an edit using the Onion Official site template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Onion_Official_site but it has been reverted by Objective3000. I stopped reverting back so as not to go in edit wars but what is the use of the template then. On a snide note Objective3000 seems not to be very objective and is the remover of many pirate bay onion link. Perhaps an administrator or higher up can look into his edits for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.136.123.48 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is an outright policy ban on Tor links, and would welcome a clarification on this from someone who could give a definitive answer. It isn't in dispute that TPB has a tor/onion link [2] although it would need to be reliably sourced. There is a problem with people adding all sorts of proxies and mirrors which are unofficial and in some cases dangerous, and these are rightly removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
The website infobox documentation refers to WP:ELOFFICIAL for rules on use of the website parm. As per subsection WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, 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. Incidentally, onion links have been blacklisted except for a handful (e.g. facebook) that have been specifically whitelisted. As I said, this has been discussed at great length and editors revert to consensus when a new editor goes against that consensus. But, you are perfectly welcome to file a complaint against me. O3000 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
DuckDuckGo also has an onion link version but it isn't in the infobox. Facebook's onion link isn't in the infobox either. I think that the consensus is not to have the link in the infobox per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which says "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The version of TPB on Tor is exactly the same as the clearweb version (this is also true of Facebook and DuckDuckGo). The main page at thepiratebay.org contains a link to the Tor version (screenshot) so it is prominently linked.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, the onion link can be added since it's official. --dqwyy (talk) from zhwiki 06:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It isn't the official url and doesn't have unique content. Also, we aren't supposed to use links that require special software to use. O3000 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I think both thepiratebay.org and uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion are officia, because the latter is listed on the official website (see the screenshot provided by User:ianmacm above). --dqwyy (talk) from zhwiki 14:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The reasons against this have already been discussed above. O3000 (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Objective3000. This has been discussed and rejected before. Wikipedia is not a directory. We are able to cover the subject encyclopedically without listing ever possible way to get to the subject's dark web site.- MrX 🖋 20:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Previous discussions: 2015, 2015,2017 - MrX 🖋 20:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Official website template

Re this edit: the "official url" template is currently redirecting to https://tea0539.blogspot.com/p/the-pirate-bay_17.html which is most definitely not thepiratebay.org. There are characters in Chinese (Green Tea News according to Google Translate). I'm not sure why this is happening and would welcome suggestions on this. Anyway, we can't link to something that is obviously not the official url. Raised this at WP:ANI.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I changed it in Wikidata. But, it's been changed there four times -- so that may not keep working. O3000 (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
As I said at ANI, the same user has also done this at xHamster. It's a Hong Kong IP address and someone is being very persistent. Due to the possible malware issue, this should be fixed as soon as possible.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's best to retain our own copy of the link on a high risk/profile page such as this, instead of using the Wikidata template. Both sites are occasionally subject to spamming of course, but we are far more able to control what happens here instead of on the other site. Speaking of which, I've added some temporary protection to the article to help deal with this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This should not be an issue any longer. I've semi-protected the item for 6 months, which should keep out the spam. Most likely the next step would be indefinite protection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully this works, but the consensus of the discussion at ANI is that relying on an external source from Wikidata is problematic with high profile URLs. TPB is on Wikidata here and it was persistent spamming that led to the problem in the enwiki article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This field in this article is the single most active target of spamming I've seen in WP since spamming of gambling related pages by online casinos has died down. O3000 (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Re this edit: as things stand, I would be happier to give the URL directly, rather than relying on what is happening over at Wikidata. The page on Wikidata is protected until 30 May 2020 so it is relatively immune to spamming at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
You may be right. Folks can still vandalize it here. But, there are likely more people watchlisting it here. Indefinite protection at WikiData would be better yet. O3000 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Objective3000, you don't want to do that .. that means that there will not be any other data that you can add to that page on WikiData either and have to wait for established user (likely a too low a protection level) or admin intervention. And you'd have to protect at least half of WikiData, it is becoming a welcome primary target for vandalism and spam. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Objective3000: It depends a lot on how things go after 30 May 2020. If there is any more of the intense spamming that occurred during 2019, it would be better to bypass Wikidata, because there are probably more regular users watching the Wikipedia page here than there are watching the Wikidata version.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Yep. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2020

Please change "Current status" from Online to Offline in the infobox; the website has had an outage due probably to the ongoing pandemic. ISpitonYourGravy (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Not done On the clearweb, the site does appear to be down right now and is producing the familiar "Error 522 Connection timed out" message from Cloudflare. The site often does this for reasons that are unclear, as mentioned in the article. However, during the 522 outages, the site often remains up on the Tor .onion version, as the official status page shows. I've just checked the .onion version and the site is still up there. This looks like another of the weird Error 522 outages, but the site is not offline completely.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a piece in TorrentFreak about the current downtime here which indicates that the.org version has been down since early March 2020, making this a considerable outage. As usual, the cause of the Error 522 Cloudflare message is a mystery to the site's rather untalkative admins, but the article adds "A few years ago, 24-hours of downtime was a reason for many people to panic, but right now a week of downtime can pass without much fuss." The .onion version is rapidly becoming the official version, because nobody at TPB can say what the technical problem behind the 522 error message is, or when it might be fixed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Related: [ https://www.torproject.org/about/trademark/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It's the Tor logo, and despite reading the link, I still couldn't figure out whether this is fair use or not. It seems to have been uploaded in 2011 with a good faith belief that it wasn't. It is not a key part of this article anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It's been granted OTRS so it won't be deleted. Judging by the link above, the Tor logo has a Creative Commons 3.0 license and can be used sensibly to explain what Tor is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Obsuser: would you please explain why you are so insistent on replacing the SVG logo with smaller JPEG logo with the white background? - MrX 🖋 22:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know is that SVG original; JPG is, I took it from website main page and uploaded it to Commons. --Obsuser (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The 275 × 295 pixels JPEG is the exact image from the current main page of TPB. The SVG image is accurate but it is a derivative work, albeit copyright free.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
And we want to use the JPEG rather than the SVG ... why? Is there some policy that mandates using the exact image that a website uses?
"File:The Pirate Bay logo.svg is a vector version of this file. It should be used in place of this raster image when not inferior." -- [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Pirate_Bay.jpg ]
--Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The SVG image has a transparent background and it's larger (and scalable), which is an improvement over the original. - MrX 🖋 11:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy Macon, MrX, ianmacm: Just a heads up in case anyone is expecting a response from them, I've blocked Obsuser for two weeks due to their continued edit warring at this and other articles, after being warned. I have no view on the matter of which file to use, images aren't really my bag, but feel free to sort it out amongst yourselves. GirthSummit (blether) 11:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Onlyforwikiapps (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

What Happened between 2009 and 2015?

The Lede says they were convicted in 2009, sentenced to a year, and released from prison early in 2015. I assume that there was an appeals process that took years, but the discrenpancy in the dates make it look like an error. It's a "stumbling block" for the Reader. No need for too much detail, but there could be a transistion word in there like "eventually", after "lengthly appeals" etc... and also more specfic than "shortened" unless they weren't uniform. The Lede is supposed to "invite" the Reader to read further into the body, but in this case I felt like I had to because the Lede might be in error.68.206.248.178 (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Registration is closed

According to TorrentFreak, the last new user added to the site was on 22 May 2019.[3] The screenshot here was taken today; it still shows a link for registration, but it does nothing and simply links back to the main index page. It seems that the ban on new user registrations is ongoing, although this is hard to source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Changing the profile picture

Hi everyone. I suggest changing the profile picture into the dark version of the logo because it suits a little bit better and if I'm not mistaken, it's the original logo. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be the version of the logo that is most commonly used on the main page. I've just had a look and it is the usual brown ship on a white background, as seen in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the brown ship the original logo rather than the black one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.12.181.31 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there again. I'm still waiting for a reply to my question. It's been a while now... Please reply! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.90.252.167 (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

As I've said above, it should be the version of the logo that is most commonly used on the main page. This aids recognition rather than using a version that is not currently used to identify the site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

SSL or TLS?

Re this edit: the problem is that it is overriding a direct quote in the source, where Peter Sunde says "Many people have asked me what we're planning to do -- and the answer is "A lot!". We're going to help out in any way we can with fighting the law. This week we're going to add SSL to The Pirate Bay."[4] ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The source was quoted in 2008, which was when TLS 1.2 had already been released. This would mean SSL was deprecated at that point, and the HTTP servers that support adding protocol-level encryption would've been enabling TLS (if not 1.2, it would at least be 1.0). The person was likely just using the term loosely (as it tends to be used to this day). Getsnoopy (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Out of date and needs revision

The article appears to be out of date. Someone should update the article to reflect the current situation. 2404:C806:1564:BD00:D38E:8D1A:54AA:AC3E (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is too vague, please suggest specific changes backed by reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I read in the linking policy WP:ELNEVER

External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors

That reads to me that the link to Pirate Bay should not be included. --- Karel Bílek (talk). 08:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The standard response of TPB would be that the site does not contain any copyrighted material. Unless you installed BitTorrent software and downloaded copyrighted files, nothing illegal would happen.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
yeah a good point. - Karel Bílek (talk). 09:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
But then it is Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement for both them and us. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

lead rewrite and various updates

I am proceeding to fully rewrite the lead with the objective of making it 1) more readable 2) up to date with some of the most prominent events (reopening of registrations, top1 torrent site after 20 years etc) , while also updating the body.

I am also noticing that the Infobos displays some very outdated informations about cryptomining, and donations are also arguably not a significant source of income as the current operator stated, but I'll keep that for now.

I will also be adding the official onion link to the website. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Onion links were blacklisted by Wikipedia a decade ago. I would be careful with using the operators of the site as reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
It also runs into problems with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Incidentally, TPB has been offline for at least the last two days.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ianmacm That's a very good reason to add the onion link. Outages of the www site are frequent enough to legitimize the insertion in my opinion.
@Objective3000 I noticed that, I was prevented from adding the link so I decided to make an official request for unban here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Allow_thepirateby_onion_site_link
If the org domain is accepted as reliable the tor one which is directly linked on the org page should as well. In any case there are other reliable sources reporting on it: https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-switches-to-a-brand-new-v3-onion-domain-210809/ Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I just tried to access TPB and got a popup demanding I install an extension that has a bad reputation. I tried on another browser and got a scam popup. I tried a third browser and got a popup to install Flash, which is unsafe and blocked by most browsers last I heard. I removed the url. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
well you shouldn't, that is the official url, no matter the advertisement used. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Why on Earth would you want an encyclopedia to link to a site that tries to install malware? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it's relevant enough. Also I would avoid evaluating the concrete risk for malware here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I Googled the software the first popup said I had to install to use the site and found many folks asking how I get it off their machines. The second was one of those popups you get claiming your PC has XXX viruses and click to repair it. That is a very common method of installing an actual virus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
OK, I just tried several more times using a sandbox to get to TPB. The first couple sent me to nudebay.com. The next was stopped attempting to install a keylogger. The last was stopped by Windows Defender as unsafe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This could consitute important additions to add on the body of the articles, as long as you can find sources to support the claims. If the relevance is established it could even, in my opinion, be worth of an addition on lead section regarding their funding using scam links, the reasoning for it and such. But again, it needs sources not your own original research.
All of this still doesn't make for a case for removing the link. We are talking about a link that is of enormous relevance for the whole page: the blocking from some state actors, the org domain being used, 20 years of iterations etc This isn't some minor stuff. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
What sources? The only source that talks about them is TorrentFreak and they are long time friends. Google it and you will see all sorts of complaints and unsafe warnings. But not from RS because RS no longer have any reason to talk about them. And what do you mean by {tq|some state actors}}? That sounds like you are insinuating that countries are doing something evil for enforcing their laws. And I said nothing about funding. As for 20 years, do you know who runs the site or where it is or if it is the same? Last I traced it, it was in Bulgaria. It is irresponsible for us to link to a site that risks our users devices. Children can use Wikipedia.
Look, if someone really wants to steal a movie or look at porn, they can Goggle it without our providing a link. We provide the site name. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
You are providing zero sources about your claims against Torrent Freak, which is a reliable outlet about piracy topics.
We still need source to add the idea that they serve malware, specificy what kind of malware, for what reason (funding, pure evilness, who knows) etc not your original research.
And I've used a very neutral tone about state actors blocking the site. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I have finished my work on the lead. I think that the first paragraph is now extremelly more readable. Before my intervention it suffered from being exceptionally obscure, mixing technical terms with very few common words and not providing a simple statement about why the topic is notable, which it now does.
I only slightly changed the other paragraphs, trying to follow a partially historical progression that ends with a more broad cultural relevance.
The missing part of the work would be to move all the references, sometimes too abundant, on the body of the article in order to provide a cleaner look to the lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
User @Ianmacm removed my addition to the lead that stated:
More than 20 years after its creation, The Pirate Bay is still one the most popular torrent site worldwide.
With the reasoning "his isn't really needed in the opening paragraph and could be seen as WP:PEACOCK for the site"
I'll proceed to change "popular" to "visited", and rephrase the time span as well to make it the most neutral. Just to be clear about the core of the edit though, this is an essential information to have on the lead. As for WP:LEAD The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences..
Looking at other major internet websites they all establish notability by mentioning visitors, which is clearly what makes a website notable. Without that the reading makes no sense, since you would not understand the reason for the raids, trials, broader cultural significance.
Twitter
Second sentence : It is one of the world's largest social media websites and one of the most visited websites in the world.
Facebook
End of first paragraph : As of October 2023, Facebook ranked as the third-most-visited website in the world, with 22.56% of its traffic coming from the United States. It was the most downloaded mobile app of the 2010s.
Amazon
First paragraph : It is considered one of the Big Five American technology companies Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit still has problems with peacock wording, because it is vague and unsourced. I am worried about the attempts to puff TPB in the opening paragraph, by portraying it in a rather positive or promotional light by making it seem bigger and better than the other torrent sites. It is definitely the most long lasting, because numerous other well known torrent sites have fallen by the wayside over the last twenty years.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

1) It is necessary to establish notability in the first paragraph, I provided exemples for it from similar pages and a link to the official guideline.
2) Precise sources are present on body of the article, from Alexa ranking to Torrent Freak.
3) It is not only the "most long lasting", it is one of the "most visited". This doesn't have any peacock wording.
I am restoring my edit and adding sources directly on lead to avoid any confusion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I just clicked again on the TPB link in the infobox. This time BitDefender blocked a redirect to a phishing site. I do not understand any rationale for purposely endangering our users. Frankly, I think Wikipedia could be liable for damages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
According to VirusTotal, the TPB website itself is clean [5] but it is the pop up ads that could be causing the problem. Definitely recommended to use an ad blocker.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
VirusTotal says BitDefender says clean. But I just tried two more times and received two more BitDefender phishing attempt warnings, to a total of three different urls. But, it's not blocking thepiratebay. It is blocking a popup or a redirect. So why does it matter if the landing page is considered safe if it loads a second page which is a phishing site? We cannot assume our users use popup blockers. I don't. The behavior is constantly changing. Sometimes it redirects to nudebay, sometimes scam popups appear, sometimes Windows Defender or BitDefender blocks, sometimes nothing happens at all. TPB has two decades of experience with avoiding various types of blocks. It's no surprise that they are using that experience in this manner. These are not annoying ads. These are attempts to install keyloggers and phishing attempts that can result in serious financial damage. In the end, we are endangering our users and I see no reason for this as anyone can Google it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, this is your research. Virustotal says otherwise. Like the top of this talk page says Wikipedia is not censored. Even if their homepage servs adware the link is extremelly significant. It is also arguably more safe to have a link to an official site that let extremelly nefarious mirrors have their way.
If Wikipedia will be liable for dammage, Wikipedia lawyers will be the one working on it. After 20 years, I doubt that it will be the case. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Neither WP:CENSOR nor WP:OR prevent us from using good editorial judgement. Your request to whitelist the TPB Onion link was declined along with the statement: Absolutely not. There is absolutely no reason to link to thepiratebay anywhere on Wikipedia. It cannot be used as a source, and is not necessary in the article about it.[6] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
They don't give any reasoning behind it. Even though an admin is expressing this view this is, for me, a clear attempt at censorship. Other torrent sites have their link up.
We can move this discussion to a RfC and look for consensus. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
And you have given no reason why you want to link to a site that is directing the browser to phishing sites. TotalVirus says BitDefender does not mark TPB a dangerous page. That is correct. That one page is not dangerous in and of itself. It's the additional page that is being forced into your browser. When I go to TPB, BitDefender does not block the page. It's blocks the second pag, logging that it is unsafe. So, TPB can beat TotalVirus while still forcing you into dangerous pages. They've been going around various blocks for decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Because the link is relevant, Wikipedia pages link to websites. That's all.
Your analysis of pishing and malware are original research, I am getting different results myself. This is, for me, a blatant attempt at censorship. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not link to every website. WP:LINKFARM And I also keep getting different results, as opposed to what one would expect - just the linked page instead of a phishing scam. As for censorship, I'm sorry but that's simply absurd. Not including a link is not censorship. We have a large number of unacceptable links, including "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States." WP:ELNO O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Not "every website", we are talking about the main website.
You don't even read the pages you link... WP:ELNO clearly states:
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:
it also states
Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.
Like I've said from the beginning:
1) You are not the judge to decide if The Pirate Bay serves malware.
2) The link is relevant anyway. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, the infobox gudelines state it must be the official url. You stated yourself that it isn't their official url and attempted to change it. Now you insist their non-official url be in the infobox. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I never said the .org url isn't their official url. It is their official url. Together with the onion url which is for the tor network.
Also your whole idea of removing the official url would risk exposing visitors to really malicious urls, as it happened with zlibrary: https://cybernews.com/security/zlibrary-copycat-exposes-millions-digital-pirates/ Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Don't know what your point is. And I certainly did not say removing the url would expose users. I said the opposite. Your link points to an article about the extreme dangers of hacking. That's exactly why we should remove a link to a site that has a long history of spreading malware and who's link itself exposes users to malware. Why would any responsible human consider such? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The article I posted points to the extreme danger of users visiting a scam site when they cannot find the original. Which is what I am stating are the consequences, in my opinion, of your idea. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment for The Pirate Bay link on page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include the official link in the infobox. While editors disagreed on whether the site actually served malware, editors justified the inclusion of the link under WP:ELOFFICIAL, which encourages the inclusion of official links and provides that official links are exempt from the restrictions on adding links containing malware. Editors did not discuss WP:ELNEVER or the possibility of including onion links, however, both of these points have been discussed previously on the talk page. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 05:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Should The Pirate Bay page display the official link to the website? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The abovementioned popups in the official link don't occur in my Firefox (with ad blocker) and Brave. In Google Chrome the popup appeared only once, disappearing after browser restart. Brandmeistertalk 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
    Appears to be random. For me about one-third of the time one of the following occurs: redirect to nudebay, immediate warning from Windows Defender or BitDefender of a keylogger or phishing page, fake warning from McAfee or Norton (which I don't have) with link to phishing site. Just tried a bunch of times again and BitDefender logs show there were blocks to three different phishing sites. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. Based on the discussion above it seems to be just a single user encountering popups for adware; that isn't enough to meet the criteria for WP:ELNO point 3, which requires actual malware, trojans, exploits, etc. before a site becomes unusable. A more obvious problem is the copyright violations; my opinion, however, is that the prohibition in ELNO point 3 is intended for more serious issues than that. If the mere fact that a site provides links to material that violates copyright alone were enough to bar us from linking to it, sites like the Internet Library would also be banned, which is nonsensical. --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been having a look round the TPB website with the browser add-on Bitdefender Traffic Light installed and it didn't complain about any of the pages. That's not to say that none of the pages have ads or pop-ups that could be a problem, but I am also using the Brave browser and this gets rid of nearly all junk. Also no complaints from Windows Security.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you looking at the BitDefender log and launching the TPB main page? I've tried on three days and the BitDefender log has dozens of "phishing attempted detected" messages. This occurs with Edge, FireFox, and Chrome. I've also tried in a sandbox, which is virgin Windows without my installed apps, and it gets warnings from Defender. Some adblockers may block these silently. But like hundreds of millions of people, I don't use an adblocker. Of course if you Google Pirate Bay virus, you get a couple pages of complaints and warnings over decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I tried the main page while doing this. (screenshot) Like many websites, TPB sets off various positives for ads and trackers, but for me it doesn't set off phishing/malware warnings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes 1) Actual malware being served by a website is different than generic allerts than an antivirus gives.
2) WP:ELNO clearly states that even for malware this is Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject.
3) Removing a link to TPB would have a chilling effect on all the other torrent pages on Wikipedia. There are multiples and all have their link up. They do actually prevent people from getting scammed by nefarious clones : https://cybernews.com/security/zlibrary-copycat-exposes-millions-digital-pirates/ Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Actual malware being served by a website is different than generic allerts than an antivirus gives. It does serve malware. My anti-virus software blocked it. It also redirected me to nudebay several times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
You are not a global reference for malware analysis. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not asking for an addition to mainspace. Although I have been in the tech field for over a half-century and lectured on such on five continents. I followed the link without an adblocker and received over a dozen warnings from respected anti-virus software applications. This is hardly surprising from a site where the founders went to prison, it has been chased from country to country by multiple governments, has as its sole purpose and even name (Pirate Bay) violation of laws, has specifically stated in the past that they will allow child pornography, is run anonymously, and has a long history of serving malware as can be seen on the innumerable complaints on a Google search. But you have your opinion and have !voted. I think it sad that we advertise and link to a dangerous site that has been banned in so many countries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_10&oldid=1258955101"