The Pirate Bay was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed April 5, 2010 Peer review Reviewed May 4, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing B‑class High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Internet culture B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Sweden B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European Union B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Law B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Open B‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Brands Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Pirate Politics Unassessed (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pirate Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pirate PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Pirate PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Pirate PoliticsPirate Politics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WAP assignment

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, CloudFlare does not offer the sort of bomb proof and indestructible hosting that TPB claimed in some of its promotional material.[5][6] The Swedish authorities were able to find the server computers in December 2014 regardless of the site's IP address.--♦IanMac M♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For the tech minded, TPB is hosted at 173.245.60.146 in California.[7] However, as the December 2014 raid showed, the server computers are (or were at the time of the December 2014 raid) in Sweden.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentFreak says that "The site is back for most people now".[8] 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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[9] The main problem is making an exception for TPB as other torrent sites are doing very similar things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

IANAL and do not make judgements of this kind. Let's stick to the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, this is WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. The trouble is that all five appear to be in use and none is the most used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have already responded to this elsewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Yes, because he was a US citizen who violated US law. Raif Badawi also violated the laws of his country and is in prison.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 search shows 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done, 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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Objective3000. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That completely ignores the Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think we should follow EL instead. --Ronz (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Look what I found [10] [11]. 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)[reply]

So you simply choose to ignore EL and the ELN discussion? And all the other discussion? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people visit here that aren't strong fans of the subject of the article. Objective3000 (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the type of thing RfCs are meant to adress. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should all of the urls for this website be included in the infobox? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The Pirate Bay does not use a single domain, it uses several. As of now these domains are thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn and thepiratebay.vg, with no clear indication of which is the main domain --AussieLegend (✉) 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To aid the closer, please limit content in the "Yes" and "No" sections to a vote, each with an appropriate rationale justifying the vote. Discussion on individual votes (if any) should be restricted to the "Discussion" section, along with any general discussion aimed at forming a consensus.

I have refactored the !votes (without changing content) as the discussion has moved beyond a simple dichotomy of yes and no. Namely, those voting "yes" were not necessarily in favor of all 5 but in opposition to none and those voting "no" were not necessarily in favor of one over five but in opposition to any.—Wugapodes

Votes

Keep all five

Support, by using shortlinks such as ".gd" we can link them all without any clutter. This is important so that we do not engage in WP:OR by arbitrarily chosing one over the other. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thibaut120094: I am unsure if you support all or at least one, and so I did not move your comment. If it needs to be moved to better articulate your opinion, please do so. Wugapodes (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's correct, I support keeping all five. Thanks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - I've explained the inapplicability of WP:ELNEVER below. 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" are, just some examples, and since this site does have multiple official websites, it supports inclusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. AussieLegend and CFCF got it right, Furthermore, most of the the no !votes below are saying no to a question that this RfC did not ask. The Pirate Bay contains no material that violates any copyright, nor does it link to material that violates any copyright. Wikipedia is not bound by legal decisions in Sweden, any more that we are bound by legal decisions in China that declare that Falun Gong is a terrorist organization and that both Wikipedia and Google are violating Chinese law by linking to [ http://http://en.falundafa.org/ ]. No Wikipedia policy forbids linking to a website facilitating copyright infringement. To claim that such a policy exists is a total fabrication; making up new policies and pretending that they are existing Wikipedia policies. If such a policy existed it would forbid our linking to Torrentfreak, Google, or Bing.. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I am unsure if you support all or oppose removing all, and so I did not move your comment. If it needs to be moved to better articulate your opinion, please do so. Wugapodes (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping all five (and of course updating the five as they occasionally change). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I think WP:NOTCENSORED overrides WP:ELNEVER here. Each time you access old .se domain you are guided to any of the currently used domains, so those aren't mirrors or something. As such Wikipedia should be allowed to contain such links for encyclopedic purposes. I see no reason to pick just one domain for linking. Brandmeister^talk 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least one

• Oppose removing all links I don't have a strong opinion on whether there are 1 or 5 external links, but since people are voting to remove all links, I thought I'd leave a note here. It seems wrong to have an encyclopedia article about a website that doesn't include the website's URL. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose exclusion Since this RFC seems to be going all over the place, I'm going to toss this in here. It seems silly to purposefully exclude any links to the Pirate Bay website on account of its association with copyright infringement, considering that we explicitly mention the TLDs in article text, and therefore removal of links would only serve as a gesture demonstrating Wikipedia editors' commitment to not supporting copyright infringement. I am not a lawyer, but if including a link to the front page of TPB is legally dubious, then by all means, we should not include the links. However, if including a link to the front page merely makes Wikipedia look like a hive of villainous copyright infringers, then we're not really following the spirit of WP:ELNEVER if we opt to exclude the links. I'm not so sure about the awkward infobox format, but the EL section seems like a reasonable alternative. — daranz [ t ] 01:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only one

• No clarified: Yes (for 1 static link only) - per the clear intention behind WP:ELNEVER, WP:ELNO and WP:ELBURDEN: to limit ELs as far as possible to a reasonable amount of links with a clear encyclopedic value. Listing every possible URL of an URL-hopping company has no encyclopedic value. Multiple ELs for the same company should only be added in exceptional cases, when each of those URLs provides distinct and unique useful information. GermanJoe (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: I am unsure if you support at least one or none, and so I did not move your comment. If it needs to be moved to better articulate your opinion, please do so. Wugapodes (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK here, thanks for the ping and your effort. GermanJoe (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, I have to clarify my stance as it has been misinterpreted to support a surprising new suggestion by a new editor. I do support exactly 1 static external link in this case. GermanJoe (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• One link only: I don't see any compelling argument to make exceptions for the policies/guidelines discussed. I'd hope we can find consensus for just one, but if not we may have to settle with none. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep none

• No, per WP:ELNEVER and because the very nature of the site forces it to continually change and scatter its domains. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 01:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please name a single example of copyrighted material linked from The Pirate Bay. Not generalities -- I am looking for a named example. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KarasuGamma: I am unsure if you support at least one or none, and so I did not move your comment. If it needs to be moved to better articulate your opinion, please do so. Wugapodes (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above, ever. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 07:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, omit them all - None of the links serve an encyclopedic purpose of further research or providing meaningful, relevant content. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. WP:EL does not require that we include any official links to a subject's website. A common sense interpretation of WP:ELNEVER would be that a website facilitating copyright infringement is every bit as unsuitable as one hosting copyright infringing material. Note that per WP:ELBURDEN, the article should not include any of these links until there is consensus in favor of doing so. - MrX 01:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please name a single example of copyrighted material linked from The Pirate Bay. Not generalities -- I am looking for a named example. If you think that "A common sense interpretation of WP:ELNEVER would be that a website facilitating copyright infringement is every bit as unsuitable as one hosting copyright infringing material." please show evidence (an RfC or community discussion) that the Wikipedia community agrees with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYLINK: " Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." This comes directly from our policy with legal implications. The principle at play is Contributory infringement. Linking to a site that plainly engages in wholesale contributory infringement is arguably contributory infringement in itself.- MrX 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to add a wikipedia policy that forbids linking to a website facilitating copyright infringement, feel free to post an RfC and see if the community supports your new policy. But please don't pretend that existing policy says that, because it clearly does not. --Guy Macon (talk)

If it were clearly against policy, we wouldn't need an RfC. My interpretation of the spirit of the policy is that linking to TBP is a bad idea. Unless consensus is established to include these links, they should be omitted, per WP:ELBURDEN.- MrX 19:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we should have links at all or not is not the subject of the RfC.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Consensus seeking takes many forms.- MrX 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, none I agree with MrX above. Per WP:ELNEVER: "material that violates the copyrights of others...should not be linked....Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement....Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." Cut and dried. There's no question that TPB contributes to the violation of copyright so no links should be included that direct people to TPB. Wugapodes (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please name a single example of The Pirate Bay illegally distributes someone else's work or linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work. Not generalities -- I am looking for a named example and an actual link. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: First, I never made the claim they "illegally distribute" copyrighted material, I said they contribute. Wikilawyering by sticking stringently to policy without regard for its intent and badgering every !vote for evidence that we need not provide per WP:ELBURDEN isn't useful or helpful. You are the one that needs to show why the link should be included. Besides, WP:ELNEVER isn't about legality, it's about whether we should contribute to copyright infringement. Sticking so stringently to policy in a clear cut case about an organisation that exists to further copyright infringement is disingenuous. Whether or not TPB "distributes" or "hosts" copyrighted material is irrelevant because the fact is they exist solely to help infringe copyright, and the spirit of ELNEVER is that we shouldn't be a part of that by linking to it, particularly since we don't have to include any links in the first place. Wugapodes (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No, none - WP:ELNEVER is a rarity in WP guidelines in that it uses the word “never” in the title and the phrase “without exception” in bolded text. In the case of TPB, we have a site all of whose founders were imprisoned, actually uses the word pirate in its name, and is currently operated by anonymous people. It appears to be a clear cut example of links that ELN discusses, and hardly a case for an extraordinary exception.

Please name a single example of The Pirate Bay violating WP:ELNEVER. Not generalities -- I am looking for a specific example and an actual link. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TPB violating our guidelines is not the issue. The issue is Wikipedia content that violates our guidelines, and probably our policies, as I pointed out above.- MrX 16:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No wikipedia policy is being violated now, and no Wikipedia policy will be violated if we list the multiple domain names. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article lists multiple domains. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states: “Normally, only one official link is included.” It lists exceptions. However, every exception listed is for cases where there exist multiple, different websites. For example a corporate site and a customer site. In the case of this article, all links point to the same site. Now, it has been argued that TPB is constantly changing its domain names. Well, this is due to the fact that TPB keeps losing its domains because of its legal difficulties. This is TPB’s problem – not our problem. We should not go out of our way and ignore guidelines because they are a rogue site chased from country to country.

Including these links appears to be a solution looking for a problem. No one is having difficulty finding TPB. The links don’t actually serve a compelling purpose. Someone that wishes to violate copyright will have no problem finding TPB without the help of an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No - per WP:ELNEVER and the fact that it operates under multiple domains. Continually, the fact that the site is mostly accessed via proxy sites (and the main urls are blocked in many regions)... Where would we stop? I'm not against piracy as such, but linking to it has no place in Wikipedia. KieranTribe 10:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• No - There is no reason to include every possible official external link to a company. We don't have to have coke.com, cocacola.com and all of the other addresses that point back to the same official site as the official sites on their Wikipedia article. Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "...Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website." If there is no 'one', then the solution would be to list none. Stesmo (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stesmo: The discussion has been refactored and it is unclear whether you prefer one link or none so your comment wasn't moved. If you think it needs to be moved or clarified in light of the refactoring and discussion, please do so. Wugapodes (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the refactoring. Keep none best works in this instance. Stesmo (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Previous discussions: Talk:The_Pirate_Bay#Links_.28see_also_the_thread_at_the_external_links_noticeboard.29 and Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#The_Pirate_Bay

Policies/guidelines brought up in discussions: WP:EL (especially WP:ELMINOFFICIAL), WP:NOT (including WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCENSORED. WP:ELNEVER concerns were discussed at length, especially at ELN, but it's not clear whether or not it applies at this point. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This debate is going round in circles. The TPB website itself does not violate copyright. A person would have to download torrent software and click on download links within the software to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not TPB violates copyright itself, the purpose of WP:ELNEVER is that Wikipedia should not contribute to the violation of copyright, no exceptions, that is why it includes the sentence "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement". There are entire sections of this article that say that TPB contributes to copyright infringement by pointing to illegaly distributed copyrighted material. So if we shouldn't point to illegally distributed copyrighted material, why should we point to something that literally exists to point to illegally distributed copyrighted material? Per MrX we don't even have to include any links, so until someone gives me a good reason why pointing to something that points to illegal material serves an encyclopedic purpose, I'm going to strongly suggest no links appear at all. Wugapodes (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We never had this debate when TPB had only one external link. There is also an element of singling out TPB because it is the most well known torrent site. There are other sites doing similar things which do not generate the same level of ongoing debate in their Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, other stuff exists and if those pages had a similar RFC, I would make the exact same points because WP:ELNEVER says "without exception", the bolding being original to the policy. But the RFC is about this page, not other stuff. Wugapodes (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of WP:ELNEVER is that Wikipedia should not contribute to the violation of copyright, I'm not sure of the relevance of IAR to this discussion. As for the purpose of ELNEVER, if you support that, do you agree then that we should not link to YouTube, which actually contains copyright violations?

Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement Linking to The Pirate Bay's domains isn't linking "to material that violates copyright" any more than linking to youtube.com is. Linking to an individual magnet file might but that falls under the same guideline as linking to individual violations at YouTube. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should not link to copyright violations on YouTube. However YouTube is a different case entirely because the purpose of youtube is not to help people infringe copyright. Don't be disingenuous. There is a vast gulf between linking to a site that has copyrighted material but attempts to remove it and a site that is literally named for its ability to help you commit piracy.Wugapodes (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ELNEVER is being used by some editors to justify not linking to the urls but this seems a clear misinterpretation of WP:ELNEVER:
  • material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. - The base domains, which is what is being linked, do not violate copyright.
  • Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable - The Pirate Bay doesn't display any copyrighted works, unlike sites like YouTube, which do contain multiple copyright violations.
  • 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 - If we were to interpret this literally, we should not be linking to YouTube at all, while The Pirate Bay contains no works. However, ELNEVER contains the following clarification:
    • This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright. - So ELNEVER first says do not link to sites containing copyrighted works violations, but then clarifies that to do so is actually OK, which is contradictory, as long as you don't link to copyrighted works directly. In the case of The Pirate Bay, there are no works to link to, only small text files called "magnet links", which require additional software to use. When that software, which is not provide by The Pirate Bay, is used even it doesn't link to any of the urls.

Wugapodes has also quoted the section of ELNEVER that says Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors, and followed that with "There's no question that TPB contributes to the violation of copyright", but this is a specious argument as "contribut[ing] to the violation of copyright" is not something that is addressed by ELNEVER. ELNEVER addresses sites that expressly violate copyright, like YouTube, which we link to several thousand times at least. Ironically, The Pirate Bay has proactively ensured it contains no copyright violations, or direct links to copyrighted works, while YouTube still contains many violations and only deletes them when it is alerted to their presence. Clearly, WP:ELNEVER is irrelevant here. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Aussies opinion, ELNVER is not applicable. WMF legal has no problems with the articles linking to the site in general, it is first if we chose to link to a single file that we are running into problems. The same problems might I add that we run into when linking to youtube. The discussion we are having about including any links should not exist and is a waste of time, this is about how many of the official sites we should link to. Also I might add that there is a multitude of free content on The Pirate Bay, including all of Wikipedias Kiwix files. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments are splitting hairs. The several comparisons to YouTube are not valid. YouTube immediately removes copyrighted material and even submissions that guide people to sites that aide copyright infringement (e.g. keygen sites) when a complaint is made. TPB flatly refuses such requests and has ridiculed the lawyers making them. WMF only said it is legal to point to a site. That is not what ELNEVER is about. It is about reputation. Objective3000 (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons to YouTube are entirely valid, YouTube hosts copyvios and ELNEVER directly addresses that website because it does. It does not mention TPB at all. It's true that TPB used to host torrents that linked to copyrighted material but the current site does not host any copyrighted material so it can't remove any. It doesn't even host torrents since it changed to using magnet links. The change to use magnet links was a proactive move to eliminate the possibility of any hosting of copyrighted material on the site. By contrast, YouTube actually does host copvyios, whether or not it responds to request to remove the material. That's why it is mentioned in ELNEVER and TPB isn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube specifically and quickly removes not only copyright violations, but even links to sites that aide copyright infringement on receiving a complaint. TPB flatly refuses to do this. Your continuing claim that TPB does nothing wrong is -- I can't find a polite way of ending this. TPB was recently shutdown by the Swedish Gov't for aiding copyright infringement. Yes, I know you claim this isn't true despite the innumerable respected refs. The entire reason this subject has come up again is that country after country after country after country has shut down TPB domains. This is not the case with YT. TPB is NOT YouTube. No country agrees with you. Objective3000 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the Wikipedia policy that forbids us from adding links to sites that aid copyright infringement. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and orangutans. YouTube, owned by a large respected corporation, hosts videos. YouTube has safe harbor provisions for removing copyright infringements. TPB, owned by Neij holdings LTD, hosts links and it's their purpose (as unequivocally denoted by the word pirate in their name and their founding purpose of "anti copyright"), to facilitate copyright infringement. WP:ELNEVER is part of guideline Guidelines should be used with common sense. Common sense tells me that linking to web sites that facilitate copyright infringement is contrary to Wikipedia' s purpose, and seriously undermines its credibility.- MrX 14:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend in his !vote states that TPB has multiple official websites. This is not true. It has multiple domain names that all point to the same website. This is not an allowed exception to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Objective3000 (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything is splitting hairs this is. Domain name and site are in ordinary communcation interchangeable. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have two completely different meanings. The guidelines state different sites and ALL examples refer to completely different sites -- not aliases for the same site. Objective3000 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no one is even going to attempt to give a very detailed explanation for how this is an appropriate exception to ELMINOFFICIAL (which applies to sites with different content), then the RfC seems a waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been addressed numerous times on this page. Does it really have to be done again? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's some point that I've overlooked, but you need clear consensus for any external links. To get that consensus, you should at least attempt to summarize past points and discussion (diffs or the like help too). --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, I would suggest that four edits in the !voting area, all demanding the same thing, are disruptive and should be placed in the discussion area, as per this RfC's guidelines. In any case, you are using the same argument used by the site's founders. That argument failed in court, failed on appeal, failed again on appeal, was rejected by the Swedish Supreme Court, and rejected by the European Court of Human Rights. Objective3000 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop going back to the ark. The site founders are no longer involved with the site and haven't been for years. Its ownership has changed hands several times. Stop visiting the sins of the father on the son. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop repeating this. The site is the same. It was shut down by the Swedish gov't recently. And, when it comes right down to it, how do you know the founders aren't involved? The Swedish courts said they were still involved after they said they weren't. The new domain names are registered to Neij. In fact, during the trial, they all claimed to have never had much to do with the site. But, all of that is irrelevant to my argument above. Guy is using the same failed argument used by the founders. Whether or not they still operate the site does not change the fact that this legal argument fails. Objective3000 (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All your statements are WP:OR, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The RfC is about whether we include one or all of the main domain names used by the site, not whether they should be linked at all. There has been broad consensus for including the link, which has been present for a number of years on this page. Whether links should be included at all is not the topic of the RfC! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie made a claim with no basis that I can see. Guy made a legal claim with no basis that I can see. They performed WP:OR. Objective3000 (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You are actually claiming that there is no basis for "Wikipedia is not bound by legal decisions in Sweden, any more that we are bound by legal decisions in China that declare that Falun Gong is a terrorist organization and that both Wikipedia and Google are violating Chinese law by linking to [ http://http://en.falundafa.org/ ]."? Are you claiming that Wikipedia must follow every law in every country (North Korea has some really interesting laws...) or just some? If so, would you care to provide a list? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing like that. You made five posts at once demanding that we: "name a single example of The Pirate Bay illegally distributes someone else's work or linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work." You are suggesting an irrelevant, specious legal argument. Your posts appear to be getting more and more angry and disruptive and strawman arguments are not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I now understand that you think that asking someone for evidence to back up a specific claim they just made is somehow making a legal claim. Five people made variations on the same baseless claim, so it was appropriate to ask each of the five to provide evidence backing up the claim rather than asking four of them to defend the wording of the fifth. The claims were made. Phrases such as "knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright" were written. I have a right to ask for a specific example of TPB posting copyrighted material or directing others to material that violates copyright. In other words, Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon and AussieLegend, it is hard to assume good faith when trying to respond to you, but I feel like I should say something. I fully agree with MrX and Wugapodes; wikilawyering over just what TPB does is flatly ignoring truth. And the scope of the RfC has clearly grown to include the plain yes/no discussion; it would be petty and bureaucratic to ignore this, and if necessary, I would be happy to start a second RfC to ask whether they should be included at all. If I do, a reasonable observer would point out the lack of need for two separate discussions that have, and will, naturally converge(d) to the same set of conclusions, regardless of what those conclusions turn out to be. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 02:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to capitalize "Truth". If the pushback you got when you made these same arguments at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#The Pirate Bay wasn't good enough for you, feel free to post an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that was directed at me; I was not part of that discussion, and you're being obsessive. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 03:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is completely missing in this discussion is any mention of WP:NOTCENSORED. This page even includes a template because the discussion has been up before. There is long standing consensus that we include a link, and this is only an RfC on how many to include. ELNEVER is not applicable to a domain, but rather to specific links, otherwise we need to block youtube entirely on Wikipedia.

Currently as it stands there seem to be 4 for including all links and 1 for including one link (discounting off topic votes).. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"discounting off topic votes" But this isn't a vote. What I'm seeing is there's no way we're ever going to have consensus to include them all, and it will be difficult to gain consensus for any. Per ELBURDEN, we may have to settle with none. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The convention, pretty much wiki-wide, is that if a company, website etc has a url we include a link to that url in the infobox, which is why I never bothered asking whether we should provide a url in the first place. It's been the case at this article that a url has been listed for a long time so there is no reason that should change. The issue here is whether, now that TPB uses multiple urls, we should choose just one url to list, or list all of them. That is why I worded the RfC question as I did. Removing the urls completely is an altogether different issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox template description does not require a url. The url in the infobox in this article has been a source of contention for various reasons for over a year and, of course, has been edited numerous times. Perhaps the RfC should have had an Other category considering the number of !votes for no url. Fact is, the stuffing of the infobox and the RfC have brought out this issue, and here we are. It makes no sense to ignore the issue. Not the first time that I've seen a discussion take on its own life and come to a different conclusion than expected. I once saw an editor go to arb and call for actions against a sysop. The result was an indef, topic ban for all BLPs for the one that brought the request. If you start something, realize it may not go where you expect. Objective3000 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely irrelevant. The fact remains that the discussion is not about that, and that there is longstanding consensus to include a link, which isn't something that can be overturned in a discussion about something else entirely. If you want to discuss that topic you will need to start a separate RfC. As it stands as answer to the RfC there is overwhelming support for including all the links, as the votes (yes I use votes, because they are baseless and not appealing to any logical argument) for something outside the RfC cannot be considered for the conclusion of this dispute. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, ELNEVER and removing all links were brought up at ELN. The RfC was a result of the discussion at ELN. It was improper to not include the no links option in the RfC as it demands that we only have two options excluding the option discussed at ELN. You have now twice insisted that we not count nearly all of the NO !votes. Indeed, you are actually claiming that consensus is that we include ALL links when the consensus is for NONE. How can you possibly believe that this is the consensus of the editors of this discussion? This is a suspension of reality. It appears that you are laying the groundwork for exactly what I predicted at ELN -- to ignore the RfC if it doesn't go your way. Objective3000 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was improper to not include the no links option in the RfC An RfC was encouraged several times but you refused to start one so please do not say what is or is not improper. If you wanted an RFC that was "proper" then you had plenty of opportunity to start one. I've explained the wording of the RfC question and why it did not include a no links option. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I think it was improper, I will say it was improper. WP is based on consensus -- not examining chads. Objective3000 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe CFCF has now inserted these links five times, reverting edits by three editors, despite the fact that WP:ELBURDEN says the links should not exist during discussion. His first revert was of an edit made by an admin who stated they should not be here during discussion. I have never asked for an action against another editor. But, this has become rather ridiculous. Although, it is what I predicted at ELN. RfCs are pointless in this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one should be modifying the disputed content. The RfC hasn't closed yet. Consensus is not clear. While I believe it doesn't satisfy WP:ELBURDEN either, starting a revert war that got the page protected in the first place is not the way to convince anyone of anything. I asked for the page to be protected again after multiple reverts so far (here and here). Hopefully things cool down before an admin deals with the page so we don't have to deal with this nonsense. The world doesn't begin or end with ELs in this article. Wugapodes (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope the protection is longer this time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randomize to show one at a time

Since there's several official domains, and people here prefer to see only a single one, can we randomize which one's shown? {{#invoke:random|item|gd|la|mn|vg}} to get la (or another) --YetAnotherAnon (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem a reasonable option, keeping all domains but only listing one at any time and would not require us to resort to OR in order to determine which of the domains that we should list. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really like that solution, I wonder if it holds up to various policies though? Maybe we should trial it? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"people here prefer to see only a single one" - Not exactly. Some people here prefer only one. Six of us prefer none.- MrX 17:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five people prefer all links, three prefer at least one. That's eight people preferring at least one link. This seems a reasonable comprimise. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's a compromise at all. So far, I'm not seeing a consensus for any links, and certainly not for a list of links presented one at a time. WP:ELBURDEN has not yet been met as far as I can tell.- MrX 17:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support for inclusion of at least one link has much wider consensus than just this discussion. 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. Note the wording, official link is included, not "may be included". --AussieLegend (✉) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor voting for 1 link, please do not re-interpret or analyze my stance. If you need a clarification, feel free to ask. If I want to support an entirely new and different proposal (by a completely new account with their first edit), I will do so myself. My statement was only meant for the initial RfC proposal and I have clarified it a bit above. Thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly we would need to analyze this proposition with the same scrutiny as the other two. Yes, it is odd that the user has only one edit, but regardless the suggestion is viable. Maybe we should start a support/oppose discussion? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not re-interpret or analyze my stance. If you need a clarification, feel free to ask - Nobody re-interpreted or analyzed your stance and you were already asked to clarify. Wugapodes refactored the section and asked you to clarify, specifically stating If it needs to be moved to better articulate your opinion, please do so.[12] Your response was to leave your vote in the "Keep at least one" section and state It's OK here.[13] If you were voting for one link, you should have moved your vote to a "One link only" section. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, you again state that the article has more than one official website. This is simply not true. They have one website with multiple aliases. This is not the purpose of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Objective3000 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the website code, it appears to be the same content but located at different domains that aren't simple aliases. Therefore it qualifies as multiple websites. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I remain very strongly opposed to inclusion of any links, per ELNEVER and ELBURDEN, if one or more links must be kept, this is how I would support doing it. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Nevermind; arguments in #Proposed closure made me realize this is a terrible idea. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a rather confusing method, and one that does not translate very well to print versions of the article. If this solution were to be implemented, there should probably be an {{efn}} to go with it, explaining that no, the official website isn't changing that often, and that there are several mirrors. — daranz [ t ] 22:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 01:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randomizing isn't a good idea. It gives a misleading impression about the actual situation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about randomizing and then having a note attached that explains that there are several official sites? That way we neither engage in OR nor mislead anyone. It seems to me to be the best compromise possible? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

As the discussion has moved beyond a simple yes-no dichotomy to encompass nos favoring removing all links and yeses favoring keeping at least one link, I have retitled and reorganized the sections. For those whose intent was not obviously clear from their comment, I have not moved their !vote and pinged them so they can order it themselves. Wugapodes (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was getting rather messy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tweeked it, creating a category for "One link only". Stesmo's response seems to fit this too, correct? --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Stesmo, so I don't want to speak for them and it could be taken as supporting only one or none per If there is no 'one', then the solution would be to list none. So I will ping them above and ask their clarification. Wugapodes (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'm fine with being in zero. While one is probably a good place normally, I don't think it's really going to be possible to pick just one for this. And, I'd rather see zero for this than to see edit warring over which one is selected as the official site of the hour. Stesmo (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stesmo: There would not need to be any edit-warring over the choice of a url. If there was a strong consensus for "just one", the proposal at #Randomize to show one at a time effectively provides for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've further restructured the section headings to be more in line with precisely what kind of content each has; moving the votes under a higher-level collective heading, and moving the discussion up to the same level. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ELMINOFFICIAL

One more attempt to get someone to explain in detail how this is an acceptable exception to ELMINOFFICIAL. My understanding is that more than one official website may be listed when they have different content, aimed at different audiences, and the purpose of each website is noteworthy. None of those apply here. Rather, editors want Wikipedia to provide a directory of sites, in violation of EL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This was all brought up in June (see (22:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)) and (12:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)) above; (08:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)) at ELN). --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I replied to you about this saying It has already been addressed numerous times on this page. Does it really have to be done again?.[14]

• "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. ... 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."[15]
• 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.[16]
• "Yes - I've explained the inapplicability of WP:ELNEVER below. 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" are, just some examples, and since this site does have multiple official websites, it supports inclusion."[17]

What more do you need? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL specifically allows for this type of exception. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states "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." All examples are when there exist multiple different sites, for example a customer site and a corporate site. This is not the case with TPB. Objective3000 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, TPB only has one website. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect see Web site. You will need to provide sources for that statement. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A website, also written as web site,[1] or simply site,[2] is a set of related web pages typically served from a single web domain."

WP:ELMINOFFICIAL allows for this exception when there are multiple websites. It says nothing about multiple aliases. ALL examples and the rational given apply to multiple websites and not multiple aliases. An example would be Hewlett-Packard. They have multiple aliases: hewlettpackard.com and hp.com. Only one is listed in the WP article. This is common. Yes, typically a website is served by one domain. But, there are many websites that are served from multiple domains, like TPB and HP. The text and examples in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL clearly are not meant to cover such and WP sites infoboxes do not list such aliases in any article that I've seen. Objective3000 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, as already pointed out, ELMINOFFICIAL makes exceptions for websites with different content. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a large example of untypical examples of websites served from multiple domains, online casino sites are often served from scores of domains. Objective3000 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AussieLegend for responding. You've quoted the comments that I'd indicated were the previous responses.

Could you respond to my interpretation of ELMINOFFICIAL, and the NOTDIRECTORY concerns? --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines don't, and can't, cater for every situation, it's simply not possible. Instead they merely guide editors (hence the name "guideline". To an extent, even our policies do that, which is why WP:IAR exists. You said, My understanding is that more than one official website may be listed when they have different content, aimed at different audiences, and the purpose of each website is noteworthy. None of those apply here.. Essentially you are correct but those are not the only situations where multiple links are appropriate. Effectively ELMINOFFICIAL doesn't apply, as it does not take into account the unique situation that we now have with TPB. Nor does NOTDIRECTORY. TPB has gone from a single domain model to a multiple domain model. While the websites look the same, as far as I can see they're all on different machines at different domains and it would be OR to try to pick just one, which is why I think the rotating list seems a good option. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If that's the best IAR argument you can make, then I don't see any need to discuss further. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an IAR argument. IAR doesn't need to be invoked because the ELMINOFFICIAL doesn't seem to apply and and NOTDIRECTORY certainly doesn't. If you think they do, can you please explain, as I've done in response to your request, providing specific examples from both ELMINOFFICIAL and NOTDIRECTORY that show that they do apply? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think ELMINOFFICIAL applies, but the explanations seem to be IDHT. There are no explanations at all for NOTDIRECTORY that I see. After almost two months, I think we should move on. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your request that I explain why ELMINOFFICIAL does not apply twice now, including 3 explanations made before you even asked, but you have not given me the courtesy of responding in kind, despite my request. Nor have you tried to rebut my explanation. Simply stating "IDHT" is not sufficient. That bears no weight at all. NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply because there is nothing in NOTDIRECTORY that applies to this situation. If you believe there is, please point to it. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses contain statements that are demonstrably false -- like your continuing claims that these are multiple sites. Objective3000 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then please demonstrate how these statements are false, as you haven't done with your claims that we're talking about a single website, which itself has been rebutted several times. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the three same cites that are in the article. You have responded with nothing but the evidence is there, go find it. There is ZERO evidence that these are different sites. Objective3000 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cites used in the article demonstrate that TPB uses multiple urls, but they don't demonstrate that it's one website. As I demonstrated, "website" is just a common way that people refer to the online presence of an entity. If you can read html, by comparing the code at each of the domains, which is slightly different for each, you'd understand that these are not one single website, as I earlier explained. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Words have meanings. The fact that some people misuse the words is not relevant. Yes, the different urls provide code with different base url definitions, no doubt required because of ancient code. This in no way suggests multiple sites as this is common and can be done using numerous methods, for example: SHTML, ASP, PHP, internal page redirects, among others. Your claim that there exist multiple sites is an invention on your part. It is up to you to provide evidence. But, the three cites in the article state there is one site with multiple domains. Which is the logical method to use. Objective3000 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some people misuse the words is not relevant - It's entirely relevant. Just because somebody says a dog is a cat doesn't mean that we have to accept that.

the different urls provide code with different base url definitions, no doubt required - Ahem, can anyone say "original research"? You can't just decide that's the case because you don't like it. Which is the logical method to use. - It is? Given TPB attempts to bullet-proof itself, that's not logical at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because somebody says a dog is a cat doesn't mean that we have to accept that. Yes, that's my point. You can't just decide that's the case because you don't like it. It is YOU that stated you have proved multiple sites with your OR. I just supplied several methods of doing this on the same site. Given TPB attempts to bullet-proof itself Their methods have failed time and again and the efforts here appear minor. They put it on CloudFlare, which is trivial, and set up multiple domains, which is trivial. (I've done both.) If you look at my previous edit currently at bottom, I have shown that all the domains point to the same site. Yes, this is OR. But, it's a response to your OR. I'm countering your invention that there exist multiple sites which is based on nothing but your imagination. I am countering your OR. There are ZERO cites that state there exist multiple sites. I only looked at the pages because you will not give up on your claims of multiple sites despite the fact that there are no references that say this. Objective3000 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your responses are not sufficient for me to determine if you have even read what editors have written, let alone WP:NOT and WP:EL. As this has been going on for almost two months, IDHT summarizes the situation quite well. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, even though you demanded that your concerns be addressed you refuse to respond in kind. The only reason for that can be that you can't provide any evidence, which pretty much invalidates your vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the burden is on you to make a case, and you appear to have made it. Problem is, that it's difficult to see it as being made in good faith. It doesn't appear to be based upon the general facts of the situation, WP:NOT and WP:EL, nor an understanding of the responses here and at ELN. IDHT summarizes the situation quite well. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have and I've provided examples. You haven't. Incidentally, it's rather funny that you and Objective seem to edit so closely together. Are you guys using the same computer or something? ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 19:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be sanctioned for that. Objective3000 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioned for what? Making a joke? Did you not see the smiley? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing unique about having aliases for a website. But, WP does not include them. This would be the FIRST time that I've ever seen. The reason that online casinos have many aliases is that they are sleazy. The reason that TPB has multiple aliases is that they keep losing them because government after government after government takes them away because they are a rogue site. That is why WP:ELNEVER applies. Why are we bending over backwards to aid and abet copyright violations which WP claims to respect? And again, in the final analysis, what is the harm in removing the links? No one is having any difficulty finding the site. So, Wikipedia can retain its reputation without harming anyone by not linking to a site that illegally abets the violation of intellectual property rights. Seriously, why would WP make an extraordinary exception for a site that has been ruled illegal and chased from country to country run by anonymous operators. Do you even know what country the site has now run to? If you want to break with WP guidelines, find a better rationale. Objective3000 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing unique about having aliases for a website You're again ignoring what has been written elsewhere in this discussion. As I said above, these don't appear to be simple aliases. Looking at the website code, it appears to be the same content but located at different domains that aren't simple aliases. Therefore it qualifies as multiple websites. it's not possible to determine whether the websites are on different machines, as they are protected by CloudFlare. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to wikilawyer that the reason they use multiple domains is one of desire to have multiple official websites, while continuing to ignore that they only do this because of everything Objective3000 has been saying. ELMINOFFICIAL does apply because, code specifics aside, there is little to nothing different between each "version" of the site, and to any reasonable observer they appear to be the same site that just happens to have multiple available domain extensions. You also appear to have ignored most or all mentions of ELBURDEN, which is also significant. As I said earlier, it's extremely hard to AGF when saying anything to you or your faction, so I don't feel comfortable in my capability to articulate how strongly I disagree with you. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the reason they use multiple domains is one of desire to have multiple official websites" - I never said anything of the sort. I have said numerous times that TPB uses multiple domains with no clear indication that one is the main domain.

"to any reasonable observer they appear to be the same site" - I think you mean "uninformed observer". The aim is to make the websites look identical and to this end they all use the stylesheet at the .org domain, but to the reasonable observer they're different websites. This is much the same as motor vehicles, refrigerators, televisions and so on. You can have thousands of apparently identical "things" but they're all individual items, not the same thing, which is what you're arguing is the case here.

"You also appear to have ignored most or all mentions of ELBURDEN" - It there's any wikilawyering, this is it. Use of urls in infoboxes has wide community support and ELBURDEN is not really aimed at infoboxes. Nor is it aimed at the body of the article. The first line of WP:EL already says "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article" and WP:ELPOINTS has imilar wording. Instead it's aimed more at the aptly named "External links" section, where there are often arguments over the addition of external links. Very rarely (this is the first I've seen) do disputes over including official websites in the infobox occur.

"to you or your faction" - "faction". Really? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this, everyone, is why polls are evil: Polling factionalizes users... Wugapodes (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great link. But, on the question of whether polls are or are not evil, I'd like a third option.:) Objective3000 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegand says: I said above, these don't appear to be simple aliases. Looking at the website code, it appears to be the same content but located at different domains that aren't simple aliases. I see no evidence that this is true. These are all the same website with multiple aliases. Keep in mind that they use a Content delivery network. A CDN caches pages from a website on many physical servers. Objective3000 (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox provides three cites for the multiple domain names. Here are three quotes, one from each cite: "As of now, the notorious torrent site is available through new GS, LA, VG, AM, MN and GD domain names." "The notorious torrent site decided to use more than one domain name, anticipating that not all would survive pressure from copyright holders." "Since then the site has been accessible through the GS, LA, VG, AM, MN and GD domain names, without even a second of downtime."

All three cites used in this article state that there is one site (singular) with multiple names. We really ought to drop the fiction that these are different websites. Objective3000 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that this is true. - As I said, I looked at the code. You could at least try to provide some evidence yourself that my evidence (the code) is wrong.

All three cites used in this article state that there is one site (singular) with multiple names - Actually no, that's not correct. The sources refer to TPB as a website but that's simply a common method of reference and doesn't accurately describe the entity known as The Pirate Bay. Microsoft isn't just a website. Neither is Apple. And here's another: Wikipedia, which is regularly referred to as a website, whil all of these are entities with multiple websites at multiple domains. As explained in the lead to this article, The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is an online index of digital content of mostly entertainment media, founded in 2003, where visitors can search, download and contribute magnet links and torrent files, which facilitate peer-to-peer file sharing among users of the BitTorrent protocol. That's what TPB is . It has a website, but it is not a website. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I looked at the code. You could at least try to provide some evidence yourself that my evidence (the code) is wrong. What evidence? "I looked at the code" is not evidence of anything. I looked at the code too. I have no idea what you are talking about. I also have no idea what you are trying to say about the site. They have a site. It has multiple names, as all three refs state. You are not providing any logical discussion. You are just denying. Objective3000 (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is the website code. Try actually reading it.

They have a site. It has multiple names - No, all of the sites have the same name. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say "the evidence is there". What evidence of what? What are you talking about? This is becoming downright silly. Objective3000 (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're just being entirely backwards in your argumentation. This isn't even relevant, but you're insisting domain name is not the same as web site, and all of a sudden when it doesn't suit you you're going to say that it does? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What?? I have consistently stated the truism that domain name and site are not the same. I have never said they were the same. That would be absurd. Objective3000 (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the home page for the four urls in the infobox. All four have a Last-Modified date of the same second: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:53:56 GMT. That is, they are the same page at the same site. There is one site with multiple aliases. There is no evidence that there exist multiple sites. Objective3000 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not convincing at all. A lot of software will allow you to set the last modified dates to anything you want. If I was setting up multiple pages that I wanted to look the same I'd make sure I did that when I modified the last page so that I could identify if somebody changed an individual page. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I see why it's relevant. This entire argument is based upon original research, and it doesn't follow any logic as to why it would affect our decision. Can we drop this? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at more pages and they have different dates from the home page, but the same dates as the other domains. You are saying they went through an enormous effort to prove me right.:) I can't believe how far you are going to try to show these are different sites. WP is based on references. You have no references. Your OR is entirely explainable on one site. Objective3000 (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have close this section because it does not contribute to any decision and meanders the discussion needlessly. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing any of my comments under the heading website vs. domain is an outright misrepresentation of the discussion, as none of my comments even address the issue. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Objective3000 and AussieLegend want to refactor or otherwise separate out their comments about websites and domains, feel free.

I do think we've reached an end to useful discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ronz, @Objective3000 and AussieLegend: if you both wanted to summarize your arguments and maybe reduce this section to a couple paragraphs (with a note saying it was refactored), I think it would help readability a ton as the walls of text are...imposing...to say the least and are pretty unhelpful to those looking at the RfC. Wugapodes (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed closure

The newest option used randomizes which domain is displayed in the infobox and links to a notes section where all links can be found, including an explanation. I believe this is a reasonable compromise for all the involved parties. This is the only solution that will display a single link at the top of the page without engaging in WP:OR. Please discuss:

Clarification this is the result

thepiratebay.la[a]

• Support as proposer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You have already done this and won't let any other editor touch the infobox. Objective3000 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to revert this edit if you think the earlier version is better. See WP:BRD. Also another editor tried the collapsed links style as well, I did not comment-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was falsely accused of edit-warring that exact bit of the infobox an hour ago. I will not touch it. Objective3000 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence shows that you did edit-war, but I appreciate your commitment not to edit the infobox. It's a shame others don't share your commitment. Strictly speaking, this should not have happened either, it's a messy way of listing at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have on opinion on what links there should be, but in case the consensus is to keep all links, the current layout looks messy by common sense. There are 4 links at the moment, but that number is a coincidence. Where do you draw the line, in principle, of how many links are too many to be listed this way? 5? 10? 20? I doubt that cluttering up fractions of the actual links somehow follows the manual of style. Collapsing it is a viable solution in case the outcome of the discussion is to keep all links. Even if we believe that 4 links don't need to be collapsed, it needs some layout cleanup to look encyclopedic.--Der Golem (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as I noted above. Randomizing content is a terrible idea for an encyclopedia. This proposal is out of process as there is currently an open RfC to determine if all or any of the links have consensus for inclusion.- MrX 14:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand on why you think it's terrible? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because if I came to the article researching information about the official website URL, I would get random piece of information that would be completely useless. I would wonder why Wikipedia was playing games with the URL and would conclude that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource. I would wonder why the information found on Wikipedia is different than information found in reliable sources like this or this. I would wonder why Wikipedia was giving me different information than Google. I would wonder why Wikipedia was using obfuscation techniques similar to most prominent facilitator of copyright infringement, The Pirate Bay.- MrX 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed there is a note at the bottom of the page. I should not need to clarify this over and over again. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feel obliged to clarify it again then because it doesn't change my mind. While we're at it, I question the wisdom of using three citations from the same questionable source, and even the same author.- MrX 18:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Editors have rejected the proposal to list all the links. Only displaying one link at a time from them all is worse, not better. --Ronz (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, editors are for listing links, and it is not clear whether the consensus is for all or one. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeated assertions about "consensus" appear to have little to do with WP:CON, and I'm surprised you are continuing to make them after its been pointed out repeatedly. As you know at this point, WP:ELBURDEN applies. If there's no strong agreement for inclusion, based upon our policies and guidelines, the links stay out. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, really, it's time to give up on IDHT. Constant repetition is detrimental to your credibility.[26][27][28][29] As it stands, there is no strong consensus for anything. In such cases, the status quo prevails. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please [WP:FOC]].

We'll be following ELBURDEN here, unless there's strong consensus to do otherwise, noting that WP:CONLEVEL prevails regardless. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given this post of yours, which specifically concentrates on the conduct of another editor, citing WP:FOC is hypocritical at best. That too does not improve your credibility. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I’m really not trying to be insulting -- just putting this in perspective as I see it. The concept of an encyclopedia resorting to providing random information filling in a field from a randomized selection of possible values one of which is probably correct, in an infobox no less, sounds like a solution that came out of a Monty Python sketch. Template:Infobox website states the field (if used) should contain: “The most used URL of the website”. If something is unknown, it should be left blank, not presented randomly. And, WP:ELNEVER says it shouldn’t be filled in at all. Again, no one is having any difficulty finding TPB. So, what’s the harm in following the guidelines? Objective3000 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is just farce, what do you mean by random information?-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that used the word random and everyone knows what I meant. But, I corrected the language. And before you object to the new text, this is what is proposed. The template calls for the most used url. No one knows which url this is. If you don't know the value for an infobox field, you leave it blank. Objective3000 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading more into the rather sparse infobox instructions than is stated. If we didn't know the url at all we'd certainly leave it out, but we do know it. We know all of them. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading what is written. We do not know the most used url. Objective3000 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do know the most used url. It is currently thepiratebay.la--Der Golem (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Alexa numbers. They're bouncing all over the place. Alexa has problems anyhow with statistics of sites accessed via proxies, common with TPB. Objective3000 (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this "solution", originally introduced by a new SPA account with no further edits, undermines Wikipedia's EL policy with a technical loophole. Also, "editors are for listing links, and it is not clear whether the consensus is for all or one." misrepresents the current situation: 6 editors are against any link, 2 are only for exactly 1 link - the majority is against multiple ELs in any form (as is current policy). GermanJoe (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not determined on the number of votes but on the strength of the arguments. Vote counting serves no purpose here, particularly as all votes have to be examined as to how they answer the RfC question. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Are we seriously considering randomly presenting a link to viewers? That is literally the exact opposite of stability and detrimental to the encyclopedia as others above me have pointed out. No one would support an edit war that constantly replaced one with another, so why are we considering the same result (constantly changing content) but letting the metawiki software do it? This is a ludicrous proposal, and I feel that someone needs to be trouted if they truly believe randomly presented content is the best option for an encyclopedia. Wugapodes (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While I think it is a novel and interesting solution put forward by CFCF and AussieLegend, I don't believe it is the appropriate one for this article or Wikipedia in general. However, I am looking forward to this issue coming to a close and being resolved. Stesmo (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credit for this does not go to either of us. The idea was that of an anonymous user. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Objective3000. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).