Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Blocking of Pirate Bay links by Facebook

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

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

Alexa rankings

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

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

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

On a side note, Jimbo has said that Alexa rankings are not very accurate anyway, and that Wikipedia articles should consider using Quantcast instead. Alexa Internet rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, because they are only as accurate as the usage statistics of the people running the Alexa toolbar. The problem with Quantcast is that it is US based and does not give a worldwide picture. The Pirate Bay on the .sx domain was ranked at 73 global [2], making it one of the top 100 most visited sites in the world. Alexa currently says about the new .ac domain "We don't have enough data to rank this website". [3]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

.ac domain change?

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

TorrentFreak confirms the move [4] and also that this is unlikely to last long, because the island is one of the British Overseas Territories and the UK has blocked the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

.pe → .gy

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

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

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

http://proxybay.info/

Just keep TDL at .org?

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

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

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

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

.sx, still

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

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

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

https vs http in infobox, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, per the five pillars, and WP:BLPWP:BRD, you were (or IP 112 was) bold, I reverted based on apparent consensus lasting over a year, and now we discuss. You've failed to prove your case that the infobox should not include HTTPS, and there's obviously no consensus to let stand your opinion-based, non-policy-based, non-practice-based change back to HTTP. Unless you can really convince anyone to agree with you, with your "Wikipedia should" and "Wikipedia shouldn't" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, just stop edit warring. --Lexein (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC) (corrected brainfart, clarified)--12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) First, I null-edit commented on my brain-fart reference to BLP. Of course I meant WP:BRD. About consensus, you have it backwards. Because of the longevity of HTTPS in the infobox (at least a year), it cannot be fairly said that consensus against HTTPS was maintained. Sorry, the Wikipedia way encourages new, wider-than-two-editors discussion to determine, given the current circumstances, what the new consensus should be. And current circumstances, given the upsurge in HTTPS implementation, advertising, encouragement, and defaulting, have certainly changed. Which is why I started the discussion, after reverting the ill-justified revert to HTTP in the infobox. None of this is just my opinion. It's me, following WP:BRD, in the best interest of the article. Your opinions about a hot ton of irrelevant topics which have nothing to do with the quality of this article or the link in the infobox now resemble simple trolling - don't know why I didn't see it earlier. I argue policy directly, you argue copyright violations (irrelevant) and things founders say (irrelevant). It's not up to just you. It's up to the community, of which I am also a member. So yeah, I'm leaning on WP:Five pillars and WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. --Lexein (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) You need to re-read WP:3RR. More than three is the violation, not 3, as explained. Unjustifiably forcing an edit which is justifiably under discussion, during discussion, meets the definition of edit warring. My revert was plainly justified. Yours were incorrect, and I've tried to explain why several times. Your edits were made while discussion, properly opened per WP:BRD, was not concluded, having insufficient input from uninvolved editors. I reverted the 112 edit, started the discussion, and endeavored, per BRD, to keep the article stable at the point before 112 changed to HTTP. Simple as that. As for ANI/EW, the instructions on reporting include not only 3RR violations, but also to editwarring against policy/guideline, in this case, WP:BRD. I warned you about your behavior to stop you from crossing the line, and to encourage civil discussion in an effort to go forward, without your off-topic piling on about irrelevancies. Your tit-for-tat warning on my Talk page was immature and without foundation. Your attitude requires me to point you to WP:TIGERS, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ETIQUETTE, and to advise you to drop the stick. --Lexein (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

First, it was not https for a year. Just 18 days. Second, YOU were the person that made an edit contrary to consensus, not I. Third, I did NOT revert during discussion. You terminated the discussion, so I reverted to consensus. Fourth, I did not bring up the claims of the founders. Fifth, you made three reverts and I two reverts, and yet you claim that I was edit-warring but you were not. Sixth, you claim I made an unfounded warning. But, it was your complaint against me that was ruled “no violation” by the noticeboard. And, it was your accusations that were false. And, instead of apologizing for making false accusations, you continue name-calling.108.41.173.242 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Arbitrary break

This is reminiscent of the Lilliput and Blefuscu egg dispute. It is unlikely that most readers of the article are much interested in whether the infobox gives the http or https address. Simply visiting the Pirate Bay website is not an act of copyright infringement; it is only a shop window of where torrents may be found. Additionally, there are enough proxies and VPNs to make this something of a non-issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quite a while back, I advocated for listing both HTTP and HTTPS links in the infobox, but infobox guardians insisted that one-URL-per infobox preference had the force of policy. So I encouraged listing HTTPS, and was pilloried by self-appointed faux "law 'n' order" guardians like (now) IP 108. It's a trivial, solvable problem, blocked by intransigence and non-policy-based rage-posting. --Lexein (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

During the ew discussion, an admin stated "there was substantial discussion some time ago that confirmed that outgoing links from Wikipedia should not be https:// but always http:// ... there were a myriad of reasons, all valid". I have yet to locate that discussion. If TPB cares, they can force TLS even without https specified. http always works when accessing TPB. https doesn’t. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User EatsShootsAndLeaves[7] isn't an admin, but another registered editor, as am I. Also, although their (unlinked) observation may have been correct at one time, it is no longer, because more recent discussions have settled on justifiable use of https links where justified, due to the massive worldwide increase in use, defaulting-to, advertising, and preference for HTTPS. I will link to those discussions as I am able. --Lexein (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe EatsShootsAndLeaves is an alternate username for an admin. What you appear to be saying is that you admit there was a discussion here, your position did not prevail, and a consensus was reached that http should be used, and that you have decided that you can unilaterally claim consensus has changed without discussion. That seems to me to be the antithesis of consensus and WP ways.108.41.173.242 (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This is really one of the more silliest edit war to date from this page, and should be nominated to the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars page once finished. That said... lets see if it consensus can be reached. Has the pirate bay made the HTTP URL the Official link? If so, policy seems to dictate that we should follow suit. Otherwise, I do not think Wikipedia policies will help us, since neither wp:MOS nor Help:URL has a written preference regarding HTTPS vs HTTP. There seem to be no other verifiable way to determine the official link, since HTTP link field is not set while visiting either URLs. As such, the discretion of picking between the two nearly arbitrary different URLs is up to us editors to decide. For this consensus in this discussion, I would support such edit based on current trends in going towards HTTPS. I have also created a inquiry at mos talk page regarding the use of HTTPS vs HTTP. Intention is not to get arbitration in this edit war, but to clear such style question for the future.Belorn (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, silly indeed considering Lexein so quickly filed a complaint about me on the ew notice board after I reverted twice and he reverted three times, and his false accusations on the board of sock puppetry. Of course, no violation was found.

Sites can choose to force https on supporting browsers. TPB has not done this. Also, the Google and Bing links to TPB are both http. Even TorrentFreak (referenced 34 times in this article) uses http to link to TPB, as late as last month's post of the switch to .se[8]. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Its silly because thousands of words and even an admin ruling was spent, all because of a single letter change. Single letter that do has no content effect what so effect, and only changes the protocol of an EL. That is a bit silly in the grand scheme of things. But anyway, common usage is not very relevant for determine official link. Official link is by definition, the link that is the official website. If the website has in one way or the other said which one it is, we should respect that. Otherwise, we are not using the official link per definition. Belorn (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, taking the time of the ew board for a phony charge and false accusations was not only silly, but an egregious waste of the time of volunteers. You keep claiming this is silly, and yet you continue to debate it.:) The site claimed a thousand times it broke no laws. Should we state that it broke no laws? The site has made so many claims over the years that are laughable and proved incorrect. Where is the offshore oil-platform server? Where is the country they bought? Where is the server inside the Swedish Parliament? Where are the flying drone servers? We don’t even know who these people are. It’s all anonymous. How can you respect such sources in an encyclopedia? I’ll go with Google and Bing. Even TorrentFreak, their strongest supporters, uses the standard http. Besides, http is used because it works with all browsers. Why would you think of using a link that doesn’t? And, how do you know that there is no content effect? https often has content effect. That is one of the difficulties of supporting TLS. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pirate sites revenue estimate

Re this edit. In this form, it tells the reader nothing about the revenue of The Pirate Bay, as it refers to pirate sites as a whole. The TorrentFreak article does not even mention The Pirate Bay by name, and there is a full version of the report at Good Money Gone Bad. This full version still lumps all of the "pirate sites" together and does not give any indication of what the advertising revenues of The Pirate Bay are. In any case, this is an external estimate and could be wildly inaccurate. This is not directly relevant to this article as it fails to go into detail about TPB other than lumping it in with all of the other sites that were studied.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Alexa ranking

Re this edit: Jimbo is on the record as not being a fan of Alexa rankings.[9] My own view is that they are not very reliable and should not be given undue weight in the WP:LEAD section of an article. In October 2014, Google changed its system to penalize torrent sites in search results.[10][11] As of November 2014, it seems that Google has removed thepiratebay.se from its results entirely, even when the user asks for it (screenshot here). Even before these changes, KickassTorrents had been narrowing the gap in the Alexa rankings. The Pirate Bay spent a long time as the most visited torrent site (according to Alexa) but this may now be changing. One of the problems with saying "KickassTorrents is the most visited torrent site" is that it leads to a WP:DATED statement that could easily change. The situation needs time to settle down; at the time of writing, TPB has an Alexa ranking of 91 (global) and KAT 77.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Added Pirate Bay Timeline

I created an image that synthesizes the history of Pirate Bay since 2003. This picture shows a preview of the events and the domains' location, displaying the relation between these two.--FrancescoBia (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Tor hidden service

{{Tor hidden services}} was added but the article doesn't mention the .onion address. I've found uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion is it the official one? 85.240.156.196 (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

TPB did have an onion site as described here but it doesn't seem to be working right now. The one given above is working but it is hard to say whether it is official. Adding onion links to articles is controversial and may be blocked by User:XLinkBot.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

TPB has software they have published, namely PirateBrowser.com, the onion site uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion is supported as the 'official' site by way of assumption. On the piratebrowser.com official site the onion site is used. This onion site has been active and working for the last few months. A number of darknet wiki's and directories also support this position; it might be worth reviewing. ^{(talk to me)} 02:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

When I tried to add uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion to the article, it triggered a warning that it was on the spam blacklist, as I thought it might (screenshot here). So that's the end of that. However, I agree that uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion now seems to be the official .onion link for the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

For the official record, I agree with adding this link to the article. PirateBrowser.com is reliable sourced as being published by The Pirate Bay. The only thing prevent it from being added as a link is the blacklist. Belorn (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ianmacm and Belorn: I've never known this form of blacklisting to affect the text of a link if not after http://, and since onion links aren't casually clickable by most users I don't see a great need to argue that part. I've added it in plaintext. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that any tool that uses this article will treat the link as if it is part of the paragraph. Accessibility tools like text-to-speech will try fully to pronounce the link, making this article directly worse for those readers, but I guess those reader will be the casualties when the blacklist is used as a way to override talk page consensus. Not that all this matter much now, since the raid took down the .onion site and thus is likely in the possession of the Swedish police. I am leaning towards removing the link as it likely now just one of many dead links in the history of the site. Belorn (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2014

Please revert edits by 178.36.155.176. 85.240.131.178 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done by another - see discussion below

The new address

The domain has been changed several times in recent days, and is currently listed as ".cba.pl". No idea where this came from, but it is incorrect, and an obvious spam portal. Go to the address and it asks you to select among a set of third party surveys to "prove your not a bot". This needs to be removed immediately. If the real domain is going to be unavailable for the mean time (which seems to be the case), I suggest we simply remove it until a legitimate one is established. At the moment, this article is vulnerable to carpetbaggers trying to funnel traffic to their spam factories. 24.60.214.65 (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to web address during "downtime"/offline/Raided server

I hope I have been doing things properly for this. During the most recent raid, multiple people have tried changing the web address to either a proxy or to another site. After looking into the new sites, I revert the address and any other changes, since TPB is in Raid status rather than defunct. In the instances of proxies, i revert the address to the original due to the fact that the proxy still uses the data stored upon the removed server blocks for the tracker/torrent/magnetlink data, creating a proxy page for an empty database, which is just as useless as the main site until we get the servers back. As for one other that I have reverted, it was a look-a-like scam/fishing site, and when I ran a google check for it, I included the website showing it was scamsite in my edit log.

What I would like to know is if I have been doing this properly to keep the integrity of the page up to date and standard.

Slaveofpeon (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a classic WP:RECENTISM situation. Things are far from clear at the moment, and proxies of sites should not be given as external links, in line with WP:EL. The official address is thepiratebay.se, and no other addresses should be given. It will be interesting to see how all of this turns out, but at the moment there is likely to be a lot of inaccurate material added to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The Register says that the new address is thepiratebay.cr (.cr is Costa Rica).[12] Even if true, this may not last for long, as some of the domain changes in 2013 lasted only a few days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The .cr has been in proxy lists for .se for a long time. I would suggest that any media source would need scrutiny or proper confident confirmation of the domain change before we cite it as fact. 212.9.30.82 (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is still no confirmation that .cr is official.[13] Unfortunately, some of the "reliable" sources have suggested that this is the new domain, so there is likely to be a wave of edits adding this to the article despite the HTML note.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a valid domain, it can still be put into the 2014 raid section as valid information as an attempt for TBP to come back online. 24.186.193.166 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)jretzios

There are various mirrors but a) they are unofficial, b) they are often out of date and do not serve the full site, and c) some of them may contain scams or malware.[14] There is no evidence that .cr and similar are official offshoots of the TPB site, so they should not be added to the article. It is the server that has gone offline, not the .se domain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

According to TorrentFreak the mirror sites are apparently pretty dependent on the original, though they have some working content. For example, testing just now (this is OR and not by an expert, do not cite!) thepairatebay.net yields results if you search for "Game of Thrones", which the news articles talk about being the most frequent download (no idea why) but not if you search for less common things that (presumably) aren't cached. Still, the fact that the mirror sites are still up and running is evidence that The Pirate Bay as a phenomenon is still ongoing; I mean, there are at this moment people paying the bills to keep those mirror sites operational, which makes this a service outage rather than a discontinuation. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There are various tools available for downloading an entire website, but these sites are like a video recording rather than a live TV channel. Some media sources have got it wrong by stating that the .cr version is officially endorsed, because it is an incomplete mirror which looks like it has been created using this technique.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This article confirms that the .cr and .ee versions are highly dubious and should not be regarded as a substitute for the .se version. Apart from not being complete and up to date versions, they may well contain malware.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need multiple talk threads concerning the status of the web address being .se versus others? Seems to clutter and occupy resources that could be used elsewhere. I am new to how these work and have been keeping revisions simple on my end for just that reason, so forgive me for my inexperience. Also I want to thank everyone for keeping up with the incessant changing of the address and assisting with helping me learn this stuff. +Slaveofpeon (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree, lets try keep the discussion to one thread. As for the link, @Ianmacm: link to WP:RECENTISM catches the situation perfectly. We should wait and see what reliable sources states. At most we could remove dead links as per WP:ELDEAD but I do not see the need to hurry. Belorn (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Is" versus "was" in the article

Re this edit: for the time being, the article should stick with MOS:COMPNOW and use "is" rather than "was". It is still too early to say what is going to happen here, since the site's owners have made no comment to the effect that they intend never to revive the site in some form. After the May 2006 raid, many people thought it might be the end of the road, but it was not. It may take weeks or months for the situation to become clearer, but the article should not jump the gun with WP:CRYSTAL statements about the demise of TPB. What is interesting is that in 2012 TPB assured everyone that it had cloud based hosting which would make raids irrelevant [15], with this TorrentFreak article saying "If the police come knocking in the future the cloud servers can of course be disconnected. However, with the site’s current setup it would be fairly easy to continue operating from another provider in a relatively short time." However, it appears that a raid on the server in Sweden has taken the site offline. The May 2006 raid led to a three day period offline, but this time it may be longer. Watch this space.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I added a TorrentFreak article which attributed the problem to the load balancer. By all accounts the servers proper are "somewhere in the cloud". Wnt (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well the article is now entirely written in past : "was". I also believe we should stick to present, because we don't know is the site is definitely dead or if it's a temporary downtime. However, I'm reluctant to fight hordes of anonymous good faith geeks.

If we are to revert to "is" rather than "was", we will need to semi-protect this article for a few days. Dodoïste (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted to present tense (again) for the time being. The problem is that some editors ignore the possibility of WP:CRYSTALBALL and think it is smart to go to the keyboard to pronounce TPB dead on the basis of news reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no actual evidence that the servers were ever cloud servers in multiple locations. This is just another of innumerable claims by TPB about the locations of their servers. Objective3000 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Objective3000: It certainly looks like you are right. But it's only a hypothesis thus far. We can't write this article according to a hypothesis. Dodoïste (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the statement that TPB is hosted on multiple virtual machines, not centrally located, should be removed. TPB has made many claims about server locations in the past that have been false. There is no reason to state this as fact. Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources for references and is itself not authoritative on matters of truths and falsehoods. If you think the statement is false, please provide sources that support your claim and we can adjust the article accordingly. Belorn (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, except you have it backwards. If you think the statement is true, please provide sources that support your claim. But, TorrentFreak has been merely repeating anonymous falsehoods for many years - including the servers would be located on an offshore oil platform, flying drones, an underground NATO bunker that turned out to be empty, a foreign country they were creating, and several third world countries, even though TraceRoute has shown that the servers remained in Sweden except for a very brief period when they moved just out of the country and were forced back. Wikipedia should not be repeating anonymous nonsense as fact. Objective3000 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

While you could try to drum up support to classify TorrentFreak as non-reliable source, I simply added a number of RS sources to the statement. Belorn (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

TF has been wrong over and over and over on this issue. I do not understand why you would want incorrect statements in an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A fuctioning mirror should be at web address box or just leave .se

I confirm that "thepiratebay.cba.pl" is a spam site that simply won't funtion and I suggest to either change that to thepiratebay.cr which is a valid mirror or just turn it back to thepiratebay.se until something official pops up. ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.40.203 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not advise people to go to a mirror of a site shut down for violation of the law. Objective3000 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no way that the .cr or .ee mirrors are valid copies, see the section above. It is interesting that so far TPB has made no official comment on the raid to the media, so it is hard to say if or when the site will return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Should the onion thing there under the url be mentioned? Doubt it is useful to 99% of the readers. -Koppapa (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel that we should leave it, not having any policy to cite upon, anyone who wants to know how to access some sort of archived equivalent should be able to via the onion in question. Besides, after this blows over, whether or not TPB comes back it can always be removed. I think of it as a valuable resource that is mentioned in a roundabout way in how TPB has dealt with censorship. But thats just my opinion of one aspect without my knowing of wiki premises. +Slaveofpeon (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been no censorship of TPB. They have always been allowed to say anything they please. Objective3000 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, there hasn't? Then why is there a whole section of the TPB's page devoted to censorship and what they have done to foil it? Section 6 describes the censorship of TPB by country, corporations, facebook, +Slaveofpeon (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Political links

The article mentions the Swedish Pirate Party but little mention if made of Lundström's involvment with various far-right political organisations in Sweden [16] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.97.232 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

prirate bay's status needs to be updated. pirate bay is back online, current address is now http://thepiratebay.cr/

174.7.9.166 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not the real website Pirate Bay ‘Copycats’ Flourish After Raid Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Undone, see the various discussions above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. Per the above comment and http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-copycats-flourish-after-raid-141212/ which says The .cr domain, which was incorrectly promoted by several news media sites as an official comeback, previously redirected to thepiratebay.ee, a site that used to charge people for access to torrents. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

new link: http://thepiratebay.cr/ 37.8.89.217 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: -How do you know it is new link for them? Do you have a source to verify your claim? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The .cr mirror is not a full or up to date version of the site. The people at TPB have made no comment about their long term intentions, or endorsed any of the mirrors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting to see though. Thanks for the link. Perhaps in time some RS will clarify thepiratebay.cr 's affiliation - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A person with reasonable technical skills can use software like HTTrack Website Copier to create superficially convincing copies of any website. The giveaway sign that something is wrong with the .cr version is that it does not allow logins or new torrents to be uploaded. This suggests that they have copied the HTML at some stage, but do not have access to the user accounts, site statistics etc. IsoHunt's http://oldpiratebay.org/ is more honest, because it is serving an archive rather than pretending to be a revived version of the TPB site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection template

Please add {{pp-vandalism}}. 85.243.244.116 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Alexa rank

TPB dropped to 91st. 85.243.244.116 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How can it be anything other than 0 visits while it is down? ~~

The Pirate Bay is still working

it isn't Avono (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The pirate bay is now based in Costa Rica. thepiratebay.cr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.157.255.191 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC) not according to torrent freak https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-copycats-flourish-after-raid-141212/ Avono (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

FAQ

I created a FAQ section regarding the "new website" as there have already been 3 attempts in this talk page to have it included. Could probably need a rephrasing. Avono (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

The Isohunt-launched site at oldpiratebay.org does *not* use the database of torrents from ThePirateBay. It just uses the database from IsoHunt.to. Try a search for any piece of content and the results are *exactly* the same, down to the order of the torrents, the number of results, and the number of seeds and leechers and all other metadata.

http://i.imgur.com/DLI3tQK.png (isohunt.to) http://i.imgur.com/54gpIfw.png (oldpiratebay.org)

I suggest editing this: On 9 December 2014, thepiratebay.se website was shut down following a Swedish Police raid. Since then, various other websites started to provide access to The Pirate Bay online index; such as IsoHunt's OldPirateBay.org, which appears to be updated with new content.[4][5]

To read: On 9 December 2014, thepiratebay.se website was shut down following a Swedish Police raid. Since then, various other websites started to provide access to The Pirate Bay online index. IsoHunt's OldPirateBay.org does not provide access to The Pirate Bay but only mirrors the content provided by IsoHunt.to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredbloogs (talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Fredbloogs: I am sorry but we cannot accept original research, please come back with a reputable source Avono (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Update Dec. 2014

As of December of 2014, The Pirate Bay website has been moved to a [http://thepiratebay.cr/ Costa Rica] domain. The article has not recognized this change yet. The site's current status should be updated to Online, the URL updated and the change reflected in the article itself. I cannot make these changes as I do not have permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozo67 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Please read the discussions above and « Pirate Bay ‘Copycats’ Flourish After Raid ». Thibaut120094 (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TPB's first comment on the raid

TPB has commented on the raid in this TorrentFreak article. It is a bit of a let down with no firm promises about a return. This leads to an element of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as it says very little which is not known already, namely it is unclear if and when the site will return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should still wait before turning to the past tense in the article, writing "was" instead of "is". Brandmeister^talk 13:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am confused regarding the lead which says The Pirate Bay (commonly abbreviated TPB) is an online index of digital content of, Therefore isn't irrelevant whether the website is online because the content is mirrored to other sites? otherwise I would support starting to use past tense. Avono (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My impression from reading TPB guys' reaction is that they are unsure about the site's future, so far at least - in the sense that the site may or may not be restored on its Swedish or on another domain (although TPB's motto declares resilience to any hardships). Even though the content is mirrored, perhaps we should wait for an official confirmation that TPB itself is entirely discontinued. Brandmeister^talk 14:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we know anything whatsoever about their reaction? Why does this article and it’s Talk page continually accept and state in Wikivoice as truth everything a two-person blog "quotes" from anonymous sources? This is embarrassing for an encyclopedia.. (I’ll probably get threatened again for this.) Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Anything that torrent sites say in public needs to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt. It is clear that TPB has a history of disseminating not always accurate information about itself. What is interesting is that the 2014 raid has produced nothing like the same degree of public protest or media attention as the 2006 raid. This is mentioned here in The Guardian, and may be worth mentioning in the article here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

should the .cr adress be blacklisted?

There has now been the 4^th attempt to get the .cr domain in the article [17]. Is it time to have it blacklisted in order to stop the spread of a potential unsafe link http://gizmodo.com/dont-trust-the-pirate-bay-posers-1671190850? Avono (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Usually it takes a good deal of evidence that a link is harmful before it is blacklisted. The problem is that some "reliable" sources suggested that the .cr address was official in the first 24 hours of TPB going offline, although it has since been accepted that it is not. For the time being, we should be patient and point people to the FAQ.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time we took these obviously unreliable sources off the RS list. What kind of reliable source would make such a report based on anonymous sources without any effort to determine if they are causing harm, much less reporting accurately. Objective3000 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above sentiments. It is true that some "Reliable sources" have asserted that the .cr domain is a legitimate successor of some sort, but this is demonstrably false to anyone who attempts to access the page. Google's bittorrent client alerts you immediately upon arriving at the page of it's status as a malware mill. If for some reason we refuse to blacklist this domain, we should at least be vigilant in combating it's trolls efforts to change the .se address without explanation. 24.60.214.65 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

relation to the sony hack

well there is one very interesting correlation .. 2 weeks after the official date of the sony hack the tpb front went down .. one of the largest somewhat resilient instantaneous established distribution highways that allowed to upload new content

1 week after the hack / 1 week before the raid, movies that could have just come from a leak at sony started to show up https://torrentfreak.com/sony-movies-leak-online-after-hack-attack-141129/ i think it took about a week to grease the gears for the takedown - as i guess this process isn't yet made instantaneous - would the server have been on "complete us imperial soil" i guess it would have. it's interesting that this obvious / logical correlation hasn't been talked about ...

i also guess the sony hack might have even been a false flag -- not ruling anything out -- to refocus war efforts on china (like done with the instrumentalized hong kong protests) PetrLeos (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@PetrLeos: You will have to wait until this is stated by reliable sources this is forumish until that is done. Avono (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any obvious link between the two, and no reliable source has made the link. The official reason is that TPB was raided after a complaint from Rights Alliance, a a Swedish anti-piracy group.[18][19]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: This link has now been commented by Eric Kaine though I would consider it merely trivia/commentary and therefore not realy suitable for the artilce. Avono (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Past Tense

see [20]. Apparently the domain is back online. Avono (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Your link goes to a site that links to a site McAfee says is dangerous. Seriously, we need to stop providing links to articles that can damage computers. I think we should just sit and wait for this to settle down, instead of dwelling on WP:recentism. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog that helps people violate the law or instantly reacts to every bit of anonymous nonsense that appears on the web. Objective3000 (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting but still too early to say that the site is planning a return.[21]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There are signs of life though, IP has reportedly moved to Moldova. Brandmeister^talk 11:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on new Image

@Der Golem: How do we know if Kopimi still applies to the current website since it doesn't has any copyright notice? Avono (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That image was already published on the original website "ages" ago; several times.--Der Golem (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Reputable sources versus plain facts

Interestingly, I was reading in an IRC channel yesterday how the new OldPirateBay clone from IsoHunt is not actually a clone at all but just a front to their own database, as explained on reddit and also mentioned in passing in a TorrentFreak news. They probably did not bother making a separate news for that, since it's so obvious. Now the opposite is stated in the first lines of this article and backed by two reputable (if maybe not reliable in this case) sources, though they seem to have copied from one another. How to go about this now? Just correct the statement and replace the two sources with links to something written on an online board and a weblog? --Lightkey (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also read that we never landed on the Moon, that the Sandy Hook massacre was faked, Michelle Obama is a man, and I’m a French model. Shouldn’t we focus on these more important “truths” instead? Or, should we just rely on reputable sources? Objective3000 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reputable source, but they said themselves in the article that "they can not confirm the authenticity of IsoHunt's claims" [that they revived ThePirateBay with the original database]. Should we use a reputable source that claims to be incompetent ? Truth is, we might never have a reliable and reputable source about the "new OldPirateBay clone from IsoHunt". So either we remove this mention of OldPirateBay entirely, either we accept a blog as a source. Delimma, dilemma. Dodoïste (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources like reddit.com fail WP:SPS, but valid concerns have been raised about whether the oldpiratebay.org search is largely a rehash of the existing isohunt.to search. The mainstream media needs to look into this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Here is a search for "Abba" on IsoHunt and here is the same search on oldpiratebay. Repeated the test with "Beatles" here and here. The files and the order in which they appear are identical; only the numbers for the seeds and leechers are slightly different.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

As I have said above, we cannot accept original research. You will have to wait until this is published by reliable sources (I know it sucks but I cannot change that policy). Avono (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Avono How is this sort of thing original research? Surely ALL of wikipedia is what internet users "originally research" by linking to the rest of the internet? You seem to be a very experienced user of wikipedia. I appreciate your effort to maintain it. How can the policy of original research be applied towards encouraging new user participation, rather than shutting out less clean contributions? The current article is deficient in reporting the current state of thepiratebay. It is a very dynamic situation. There may not be any possible "official" answer. How can wikipedia be more informative about this situation if people trying to prevent vandalism prevent the article reflecting how dynamic thepiratebay now is (now it is an idea copied into many websites). I hope what I'm asking makes sense and comes across as not hostile. I'm frustrated by wikipedia not effectively reporting on this sort of thing for fear of being too messy or "illegal". Merry Xmas eve. Rusl (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it based on research done by a wikipedia user not that of a source which is text book original research. We can only say what other sources are saying (I know that it can become silly sometimes but the rules are the rules). I showed with the venturebeat source that some torrents came from pirate bay before the shutdown. Avono (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Quote from http://venturebeat.com/2014/12/12/isohunt-unofficially-resurrects-the-pirate-bay/ Update: Readers are reporting that for popular searches there is a clear overlap (identical in most cases) between isoHunt.to and oldpiratebay.org. This shouldn’t be too surprising given how torrent indices are often shared, and that most were sourced from The Pirate Bay in the first place. Again, no site out there right now will be as “good” as The Pirate Bay was before it went down. That said, this story is far from over as we haven’t heard from The Pirate Bay crew Avono (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that isohunt.to has used a copied database to draw attention to itself. It is obvious that the results are identical, and I don't think that the oldpiratebay search deserves a name check in the WP:LEAD. It could be mentioned later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

that is an acceptable compromise. Avono (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Um...site not down...

TPB site is NOT down. It has been up a while now. Probably because you guys have the wrong URL listed here. TPB is not thepiratebay.se. I it thepiratebay.cr

Someone should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.130.147 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of the page. For the record, thepiratebay.cr and thepiratebay.ee were known to exist before the December 2014 raid, but they were never regarded as official versions. Things have moved on, because there are signs of life at thepiratebay.se. The Swedish police seized the server equipment, not the .se domain.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Countdown

Right now, it seems that the flip clock on thepiratebay.se is counting down to midnight January 31st - February 1st (Central European Time, could be either because the domain is Swedish, or because it's also my own time zone, someone from a different timezone should check it). I'm not sure exactly what it means (I can only take a guess that it might be when it'll be back for service, or perhaps when the domain will cease to exist...?!) I'm not very experienced with editing articles, so I'll leave it up to more experienced wikipedia users to do anything with it (if necessary), but I thought I'd bring it to attention :) 87.211.105.24 (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not now.... Lets wait until a reliable source publishes this, than we can update it, thanks for the notification. Avono (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Avono: & others - FWIW - Seems "TorrentFreak" and "International Business Times" may have relevant information - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
[note: update - added IBT ref => Drbogdan (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)]

 Done - added relevant text/ref to article - *entirely* ok with me to rv/mv/ce the edit of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I can’t believe the stuff that people think is encyclopedic. Something unknown might happen. Stop the presses. Objective3000 (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

So you object that we are trying to accurately describe the current state of The Pirate Bay? Avono (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is pure speculation. 16:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)

The article hasn't been used to present that speculation but to describe the current state of the Website. I too would have reverted that as WP:CRYSTALBALL but it isn't being used in that context. Avono (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

If someone cares about every tiny change to the site, without any knowledge of why, they can go to the site or read the blogs. The clock counts up. The clock counts down. Are we updating an encyclopedia, or being led about by the nose by a bunch of anonymous hackers? The article is speculative fluff. Objective3000 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)