Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

RfC - 24 July 2015

To start, I have read the RFC, the above discussions, and the section on WP:ELN in doing this closing. There are numerous questions in this RFC as shown by the answers. The controlling policies and guidelines are undisputed as WP:ELMINOFFICIAL and WP:ELNEVER. The questions are.

1. Should there be a link or no link. The question has been left to the community according to the section on WP:ELN and comments here. I find that there is consensus to link to the site. Both opinions in the discussion were strong. The minority opinion sites WP:ELNEVER. But the majority argument says that it does not apply.

2. Should there be five links? The consensus is against 5 links. The failed argument based on WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is that the different url's are "websites", but the reading of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL includes "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content" and one of the main proponents even said the sites code to the pages only has "slight diffrences"[1]. The majority argument is that the site is the same and that the URL's point to the same content.

3. Should there be 1 or more links? There is a consensus to link to the Pirate Bay. No responder suggested more than 1 link.

4. Should the URL rotate? There is strong consensus against this proposal.

I hope this answers all the questions. AlbinoFerret 19:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)

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)
@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)
Yeah it's correct, I support keeping all five. Thanks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
    At any given time, there is only one official link, the other 4 are disfunctional and as is argued above not the official link at that time - and hence these fail our inclusion standards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Beetstra: That's not correct. All of the links work all of the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    @AussieLegend: - you say here "The rather unique situation we have with The Pirate Bay is that it recently changed to a system where it uses 5 domains, thepiratebay.am, thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn and thepiratebay.vg, cycling through all of the domains on a regular basis with none used more than any other." - am I wrong in presuming that is still the situation, or has that changed? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    It appears to have changed since I wrote that. For some time now, all urls have been active all of the time, which is the problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
@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)
I support keeping all five (and of course updating the five as they occasionally change). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 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. Brandmeistertalk 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTCENSORED is not an argument for keeping all five, or only one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Per NOTCENSORED, "some articles may include [...] text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable". Brandmeistertalk 07:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This appears then to be one of the unique cases where 5 official addresses are there, where there is not one 'more global', 'more official', etc. I therefore change my !vote to this option, except if there are legal or EL:NEVER reasons that I am not aware of that preclude linking to these sites. I would suggest however that they get listed from one bullet-item. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - Keep all five, they are all the official website and conform to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL Jadeslair (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Keep all links. First being full URL, rest just links. -Abhishikt (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • Second option (but I know that it will instigate edit wars etc.): in principle this would be my primary !vote - we give an official link to the subject of the site merely as a service, for the people to get primary information - we do not link all of them as generally they are not unique. There is no need to list 5 identical sites .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • One is probably sufficient at any given time, under the current situation. The DNS circumstances of this site appear to change (radically, even systemically) from time to time, so this may need to be revisited as necessary. If it's no longer true that the domains aren't being round-robined (i.e. with only one working at a time), and now all of them work, then one is sufficient. If it gets taken down, use a different one. There's no encyclopedic need to list all of them. For all we know, next week they'll have 50. If they go back to a system where only one works at any given time, but there are multiple, then list multiple, within reason (5 should be plenty, 10 is too many, but 2 could be too few if there's only, say, a 2/5 chance they'll work).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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)
@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)
It's OK here, thanks for the ping and your effort. GermanJoe (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • Yes, only one, per WP:ELOFFICIAL - at any given time there is only one official link, and that one can be included. All others fail our inclusions standards. As I have already argued a couple of times, and elsewhere, put this one into a template and transclude the template, edit the template every time to reflect the correct url whenever it changes (or get a bot to update it at any given time) so that the main page does not get edited ad nauseam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    How do we determine which is the current official link? While creation of a template would stop the main page being edited ad nauseam it would be necessary to edit the template ad nauseam, so this solution just moves the editing elsewhere. The randomising proposal below, in the article, would be a far better option than that, but it hasn't received any support. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    @AussieLegend: Yes, the template will be edited a lot, but it gets this page from the watchlists. You say here "The rather unique situation we have with The Pirate Bay is that it recently changed to a system where it uses 5 domains, thepiratebay.am, thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn and thepiratebay.vg, cycling through all of the domains on a regular basis with none used more than any other.", and that is then what the page should reflect. Either the page has to reflect that 'in real time', or the template has to do that (avoiding all the edits to the page). Listing 4 defunct websites leaving it to the reader to guess which one is the current correct one is also not a solution. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
@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)
None of the above, ever. —烏Γ (kaw), 07:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
Whether we should have links at all or not is not the subject of the RfC.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I know. Consensus seeking takes many forms.- MrX 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
@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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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.
The problem is that copyright laws vary by jurisdiction, and TPB also helps find non-infringing material (and itself does not host any infringing material anyway). YouTube appears to consist of (and directly hosts) at least 50% copyvio material, yet we link to it regularly. Same goes for many other sites. TBP is just a search engine for content; even the .torrent files are not hosted there but are retrieved cloudwise via the magnet protocol. Your own computer is doing to the work to get the torrent file and then the torrent. The lawyers will be arguing for another decade about how to make what TBP does actually illegal, but by then there will be a new protocol doing something else even more diffusely distributed. [shrug]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously still claiming TPB does nothing illegal? The arguments are over. They lost every case. They went to prison. The Swedish government recently shut them down. They are running from country to country. Their domains are regularly seized. What they do is illegal. And, bringing up YouTube for the twentieth time is boorish. YT obeys take-down orders. TPB does not. Objective3000 (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
@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)
Thanks for the refactoring. Keep none best works in this instance. Stesmo (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That logic doesn't track. If the subject has multiple official websites, we'd still list one, not list zero of them because we couldn't decide, in our own opinion, which we thought was "more official" than the other official ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No its illegal to pirate movies so it should have no links A8v (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    @A8v:Whether or not it's illegal to pirate movies is not the issue and it doesn't prevent linking to the website, since the site itself does not violate copyright (it contains no copyrighted works). Please see this post for clarification. --AussieLegend
    Actually, it's a central issue. Actively participating in contributory infringement not only has legal implications, it sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.- MrX 19:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    Have you read WP:ELNEVER? To paraphrase, it's OK to link to a website as long as you don't link to a page on that website that has content that infringes copyright. There's nothing on TPB that infringes copyright because it doesn't host files, just magnet links. Since there is no infringing content, "it" is not a central issue at all. This has already been covered at length in this discussion. Do a text search for "magnet" and/or "YouTube". --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, of course I have read it. Notably, I didn't cite ELNEVER it in my previous comment. I'm also quite up to speed on how TPB works to faciliate copyright infringement. I know they don't host copyrighted material, so can you quit repeating that?
    Our guidelines don't exist in a vacuum. Just because something isn't specifically proscribed, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea for Wikipedia. The entirety of the benefit of the links accrue to the owners of The Pirate Bay who get ad revenue, and to people looking to rip off copyright holders. The content on The Pirate Bay is devoid of substance and completely lacking of any educational, informational, or cultural value. That should be the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.- MrX 20:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well that is completely irrelevant. If you want to change WP:CENSOR go ahead and give it a shot, but until you succeed in doing that your argument is moot. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a strawman argument since I didn't propose censoring objectionable material.- MrX 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
So the links are non-objectionable? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:CENSOR isn't WP:IAR, it's for specific situations and lines of thinking. The content in question here isn't objectionable in that it's nudity or gore or obsecenity (things frequently censored). It's objectionable in that people object to its inclusion because it's against policy. If that's what you think WP:CENSOR covers then you haven't read WP:CENSOR because it says "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies..." that's regardless of the content. Under your interpretation we shouldn't delete non-fair use, copyrighted porn because that's censorship. Arguing WP:CENSOR here is ludicrous. Wugapodes (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Then enlighten me, which policy does it violate? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Literally if you scroll up or down a few inches you will see discussion of what policies people think it violates including my own. In fact, there's an entire section, that you participated in, on this very page discussing whether it violates WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. I'm not going to engage a new discussion, in a new section, on the same topics discussed ad nauseum on this same page. Wugapodes (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:ELMINOFFICAL has exceptions, it clearly states so. I do not understand the need to reiterate this, I know you are aware of it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations, you can read. I do not understand your need to continuously make the same point over and over again as if sheer nuisance will convince me of your side. I have read every discussion on this page and the policies in question. In fact, I have participated in the very discussions, and I still have not been swayed by your arguments. Repeating them won't convince me, and I do not want to take time out of my day to participate in you beating a dead horse. So if you have a novel interpretation of policy, put it in a new section and if I think it's worth my time, I'll respond to it. Until then, drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass. Wugapodes (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • None. While The Pirate Bay does not have a permanent reliable URL, we cannot provide a link to one. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion about discussion
  • @A8v:Whether or not it's illegal to pirate movies is not the issue and it doesn't prevent linking to the website, since the site itself does not violate copyright (it contains no copyrighted works). Please see this post for clarification. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
More circles. This point has been debated over and over. This is your opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
This sort of post is exactly the sort of flaming that we do not want to continue, so please stop. I merely made a comment about the vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The instructions say we should not add comments to the votes. So, please stop. Objective3000 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware of what the instructions say, since I wrote them, but they have been ignored for some time (including by yourself), as has the RfC question. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
NO, I have not ignored them. Objective3000 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
To me it looks like you're ignoring them right now. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Also there is an actual argument behind saying that it doesn't matter if it's illegal and that it's completely irrelevant. What isn't an argument is accusing others of being circular in their reasoning. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


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)

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)
Thank you. I hope the protection is longer this time. Objective3000 (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Randomize to show one at a time

The Pirate Bay
URLthepiratebay.vg[1][2][3]

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 mn (or another) --YetAnotherAnon (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.[2] Your response was to leave your vote in the "Keep at least one" section and state It's OK here.[3] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. —烏Γ (kaw), 01:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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?.[4]
  • "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."[5]
  • 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.[6]
  • "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."[7]
What more do you need? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL specifically allows for this type of exception. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
Again, TPB only has one website. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect see Web site. You will need to provide sources for that statement. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
"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)
And, as already pointed out, ELMINOFFICIAL makes exceptions for websites with different content. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You should be sanctioned for that. Objective3000 (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Sanctioned for what? Making a joke? Did you not see the smiley? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I've asked Ronz to address my concerns, as I addressed his. However he refuses. Instead, he opened a discusssion on my talk page.[8] I do not wish to discuss this issue on my talk page and have advised him of that, several times[9][10][11] but he insists on discussing it there,[12][13][14][15] although he has still not addressed my concerns. Even after archiving the discussion he continues to post, without actually bothering to respond to the request that I made above.[16] I don't believe that splitting this discussion helps anyone. The discussion should all be kept in one place so, given the abject failure of Ronz to respond to my request I have no alternative but to believe that he cannot demonstrate how ELMINOFFICIAL or NOTDIRECTORY apply. This part of the discussion seems to have come to an end. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
He did respond. You keep ignoring responses and !votes you don't like and making false accusations. Objective3000 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
No he did not, as I have had to explain above, above that, on my talk page and now down below in yet another sub-thread.[17] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
And this, everyone, is why polls are evil: Polling factionalizes users... Wugapodes (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Discussion on prediction of future behavior and resulting argument
You know that if I summarise my comments, Objective3000/Ronz will summarise theirs in such a way that it will just lead into another off-topic discussion. There's very little point in adding a summary to this section unless it's collapsed, which Objective3000 and Ronz can't agree upon, as evidenced by their most recent edit-war.[18][19][20] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't close to an edit-war, and what on Earth do you mean most-recent? We have never warred over our edits. If you want to know what an edit-war is, CFCF has reverted seven times in the infobox, and has just changed it again despite the warning to not modify during the RfC that is in the infobox and a warning from a sysop four days ago to stop edit-warring that very section. Again, I think this is pointless because he will do what he wants no matter what (assuming he survives the current ArbCom case). Objective3000 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
What you did was the very definition of an edit-war An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions.
"We have never warred over our edits." - Really? There was a very clear edit-war in the infobox only four days ago and both of you were participants.[21][22][23][24][25] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Read again what I said. We have never edit-warred over our edits, as you claimed. I thought I'd give CFCF's hat a chance, Ronz disagreed and I let it go. I repeated nothing. That is no war. As for the edit box four days back, Ronz and I each reverted once. CFCF has reverted that text over and over since June, including three times immediately after full protection was lifted. An admin warned him, and he just changed the text yet again yesterday, ignoring the admin warning, ignoring the warning placed in the infobox, ignoring the ongoing RfC, and continuing his weeks long edit-war. He must stop editing the infobox during the RfC. Objective3000 (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say you had edit-warred over your edits at all. I said as evidenced by their most recent edit-war and you questioned that asking what on Earth do you mean most-recent? Clearly you have been involved in two edit wars in the past four days and that needs to stop. You shouldn't be involving yourself in any edit-wars over this. Nor should you be blaming others for doing what you've been doing. And, most importantly, you need to actually read what people have said and stick to the topic. I'm not going to reply in this thread any more as it's pushing the RfC way off-topic. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Unaddressed concerns?

Re [26], what are the unaddressed concerns, if any? --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"If any"? I've explained to you a number of times and I shouldn't have to repeat myself. On my talk page you said Then let's do it here so we won't be distracted and you won't be accused of more repetitive arguments on the article talk page,[27] yet here you are asking me to repeat what I've already asked and which is easy to find if you followed the thread. Not only that but, instead of asking for clarification in that same thread, you've opened yet another sub-thread just to ask me instead of answering the question. If you had just responded to the initial question none of this would have been necessary. At the risk of raising the ire of those who are sick of repetition I'll point you to the relevant post in which I specifically asked 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?[28] I don't expect you to answer the question now. It would have been nice a week ago when I asked but... --AussieLegend (✉) 03:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC.
"NOTDIRECTORY certainly doesn't" That's an assertion, not an explanation. Please offer some sort of explanation so the response isn't a simple IDHT and rejection of others' viewpoints. You might want to one or more of the explanations given for why it does apply.
"ELMINOFFICIAL doesn't seem to apply" Again, that's an assertion, not an explanation.
When I started the ELMINOFFICIAL discussion, I explained why NOTDIRECTORY ELMINOFFICIAL (refactored 01:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)) applies in some detail, and provided datestamp info for other comments that I felt were important: "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)".
I subsequently emphasized the ELMINOFFICIAL exception being for different content, "And, as already pointed out, ELMINOFFICIAL makes exceptions for websites with different content. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)"
ELOFFICIAL explains why we add official website links, "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Hence, the ELMINOFFICIAL exception for different content.
Since each website has the same content, they should not be linked as duplicate official websites.
The purpose of listing all of them then is to provide a directory, which violates NOTDIRECTORY as already explained, as well as NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for citing FOC again. I've already addressed that at my talk page, in response to your very first post so I won't address it again. I've addressed your persistent use of IDHT as well, several times, but you apparently didn't hear me. I see no point in repeating myself.
When I started the ELMINOFFICIAL discussion, I explained why NOTDIRECTORY applies in some detail, and provided datestamp info for other comments that I felt were important - datestamps at another board are no help here (datestamps even here are really not helpful either). You either need diffs, or answer here. This is what I explained at my talk page. HERE is the correct place to discuss this RfC, not at other venues. In any case, you didn't explain why NOTDIRECTORY applies in any detail when you started the ELMINOFFICIAL discussion. All you said was editors want Wikipedia to provide a directory of sites, in violation of EL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.[29] That's why I asked you to explain it.
The purpose of listing all of them then is to provide a directory - That is not correct at all. The reason for listing all of the websites is that TPB uses all domains as its main site without any indication as to which is the main, main site. If we were to list only one, that would require an arbitrary choice which would rquire original research, which is not permitted by policy. That's point 4 of WP:NOTDIR out of the way and none of the others apply. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"you didn't explain why NOTDIRECTORY" I meant ELMINOFFICIAL. I've refactored, but it's completely irrelevant. Someone else had explained. I explained later in the same comment. You figured out what I meant in my latter reference to NOTDIRECTORY.
I'm unaware of any consensus that OR applies to external links, let alone in a manner even remotely similar to what you are suggesting.
We provide official links "to see what the subject says about itself", not to indicate what website is their main website. Listing them all is by definition providing a directory that does not serve the purpose of ELOFFICIAL; violates ELMINOFFICIAL, NOTDIRECTORY, and NOTLINK; all while we're already struggling with ELNEVER concerns. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging that you made a mistake, but I asked you to explain, as I explained after you asked, and two of the three datestamps that you provided as evidence of what other people think about ELMINOFFICIAL are unhelpful. I can't even find them doing a text search - datestamps aren't the same for every user which is why diffs are needed. You still haven't explained why ELMINOFFICIAL applies and you've avoided explaining NOTDIRECTORY again.
I'm unaware of any consensus that OR applies to external links - Unlike ELMINOFFICIAL and ELNEVER, which are guidelines, WP:OR is a policy, and has greater weight. Like other policies, it applies to all of Wikipedia articles.
We provide official links "to see what the subject says about itself", not to indicate what website is their main website. Listing them all is by definition providing a directory ... - Before we get onto WP:OR lets look at the other thinks you've mentioned:
  • WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - Already addressed at length by me
  • WP:NOTDIRECTORY - You still haven't explained how you think NOTDIRECTORY applies. I can't really address this further until you do.
  • WP:NOTLINK - Have you actually read this? There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section We're not talking about the external links section. We're talking about the infobox.
The applicability of WP:OR should be easy to understand. TPB uses multiple domains. The infobox instructions state that |url= The most used URL of the website. So what is the most used url? This is normally an easy one. For Microsoft it's microsoft.com, for Apple it's apple.com, etc. TPB is a different matter since it uses multiple domains. Reliable sources don't state a most used url for TPB so editors have to go to other sites like Alexa and determine by comparison which url is the most used. That is original research. We have to go by what is stated in reliable sources and reliable sources list all the domains, so we have to list them all. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
First, there is no reliable source. There is a biased blog that uses anonymous sources. Second, your claim that we must list them all is an opinion not backed up by any guideline and that doesn't appear to be followed in any other article in Wikipedia. 11:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Already addressed at length by me", "You still haven't explained...", "Have you actually..." Sorry, but it appears you simply are not reading what has been been written by me nor anyone else on these matters.
I wrote, "We provide official links "to see what the subject says about itself", not to indicate what website is their main website. Listing them all is by definition providing a directory that does not serve the purpose of ELOFFICIAL; violates ELMINOFFICIAL, NOTDIRECTORY, and NOTLINK; all while we're already struggling with ELNEVER concerns. " I believe that it summarizes the multiple responses, some over two months old, that address these concerns.
"The most used URL of the website." "So what is the most used url?.." This interpretation assumes that we are providing directory services, rather than explicitly not providing directory services per NOTDIRECTORY, but do take it to WP:ORN if you feel strongly we are violating OR by not providing a directory. --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm reading everything that is written, but I can't read what you refuse to write. I've already commented on the section that I quoted, and which you've quoted again. You're still arguing NOTDIRECTORY, but you're not stating how NOTDIRECTORY applies. I can't see anything in NOTDIRECTORY that applies.
This interpretation - There's no interpretation there. I quoted exactly what the instructions say and asked a question.
we are violating OR by not providing a directory - Listing the links as supplied by various sources is not a directory as defined by NOTDIR. As for ORN, have you bothered asking a question there?
Clearly, this discussion is going nowhere either since you don't seem to want to specifically answer my request, so there is little point in replying. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTDIRECTORY applies because you want to create a directory rather than have any concern about the content. This has been said over and over and over, some two months ago.
Re "interpretation": The instructions are wrong as being interpreted. EL and NOT apply to infoboxes. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The text at NOTDIRECTORY is reached by a number of links, WP:NOPRICES, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTQUOTE, WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, WP:NOTWHITE, WP:NOTYELLOW, WP:Not a phonebook. Just as listing the urls in the infobox is not a phonebook, a priceguide or a radio guide, it doesn't constitute a directory. I suggest you actually read the definition of a directory as specified by WP:NOTGENEALOGY, which links to Directory service.
Re "interpretation": The instructions are wrong as being interpreted. EL and NOT apply to infoboxes - You weren't talking about EL and NOT when you said "The most used URL of the website." "So what is the most used url?.." This interpretation. We were talking about the infobox instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and updated the instructions for the infobox. Instructions don't trump our policies and guidelines per WP:CONLOCAL. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Changing template instructions to strengthen your position in a discussion, regardless of whether or not it may be valid, is little better than something like sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. It's almost in the realm of WP:FAIT, and such edits are subject to an arbcom ruling. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Then take it to Arbcom. CON, EL, NOT are backed by strong policy-based consensus. Interfering with the application of that consensus is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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]

References

  1. ^ Ernesto (May 19, 2015). "Pirate Bay Moves to GS, LA, VG, AM, MN and GD Domains". TorrentFreak. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  2. ^ Ernesto (July 15, 2015). "Pirate Bay 'Hydra' Loses Another Domain Name". TorrentFreak. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  3. ^ Ernesto (May 22, 2015). "Pirate Bay Loses New Domain Name, Hydra Lives On". TorrentFreak. Retrieved July 19, 2015.
  • Support as proposer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - You have already done this and won't let any other editor touch the infobox. Objective3000 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
Could you please expand on why you think it's terrible? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
Ronz, really, it's time to give up on IDHT. Constant repetition is detrimental to your credibility.[30][31][32][33] As it stands, there is no strong consensus for anything. In such cases, the status quo prevails. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
So you choose to ignore WP:DR, as well as WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:CON? --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I second the mention of CONLEVEL, in that ELBURDEN applies overarchingly even if this discussion hasn't really addressed it, and, specifically in NOCON, that In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them. The positions on this issue are clear, as they have been throughout the entire RfC, and it seems impossible for either side to convince the other that they are right, which, to me, looks like a firm declaration of no consensus. This discussion will continue to go nowhere fast, other than building up flame wars and amassing enough evidence to send everyone toward discipline. —烏Γ (kaw), 05:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
This argument is just farce, what do you mean by random information?-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
I am reading what is written. We do not know the most used url. Objective3000 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually we do know the most used url. It is currently thepiratebay.la--Der Golem (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
No, the numbers are not bouncing all over the place, their ratios are completely stable. Users with proxies or VPNs will definitely not change the ratios in the traffic between the urls. Simply admitting when you are wrong instead of finding obviously invalid excuses makes you more credible in a discussion.--Der Golem (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The numbers are not only changing, two of the domains have been completely dropped since this multiple domain nonsense in the infobox started. And please, WP:FOC. Objective3000 (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • Oppose per Objective3000. —烏Γ (kaw), 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As I understand here "The rather unique situation we have with The Pirate Bay is that it recently changed to a system where it uses 5 domains, thepiratebay.am, thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn and thepiratebay.vg, cycling through all of the domains on a regular basis with none used more than any other.", which would mean that at about 1/25th of the time the correct, currently active url is displayed with this randomisation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    @Beetstra: As I've explained above, this has changed since I wrote that nearly two months ago. All of the urls are active all of the time now. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    Then randomization is not needed either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion to Close

I suggest we close the RfC early since we are beating a dead horse at this point. The discussion seems to be going in circles, and the number of contributions to the RfC seem to have slowed, so I don't think it's unreasonable. I also suggest we request admin closure since this seems to be rather complex and contentious. Wugapodes (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support both as proposer. Wugapodes (talk) 07:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The RfC has only been going for 11 days. The normal period is 30 days unless there is strong consensus. There is no reason why the RfC shouldn't be left open for the entire period. The solution is to advertise the RfC in more places and get opinions from more editors, not to close it. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Nothing but circles here. Objective3000 (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as I've mentioned above and at WP:ELN. Attracting more editors will only grow the size of the faction war. —烏Γ (kaw), 05:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    Attracting more comments is the aim of every RfC. In fact it's the whole point. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - As I've stated above, the RfC has only been going for 12 days. The normal period is 30 days unless there is strong consensus. There is no reason why the RfC shouldn't be left open for the entire period. The solution is to advertise the RfC in more places and get opinions from more editors, not to close it. Any argument that Attracting more editors will only grow the size of the faction war is quite ridiculous. The aim of any RfC is to get as much input from the community as possible. We don't close RfCs just because some editors don't like the fact that the discussion is not going their way. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Thank you for your input. First off, while the normal term is 30 days, per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time" which is the purpose of this motion to see if the participants want to agree to end it. You don't have to agree to end it early, but you're wrong in asserting it cannot be closed early. Also per WP:RFC#Ending RfCs: "Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." so citing slowing contributions as a reason to end is well inline with policy. The last new editor to contribute was seven days ago. And I believe there is reason to close it early: would you say the last 11 days of discussion between you and Objective3000 have been productive and beneficial? Have either of you actually convinced the other of anything or done anything except talk past each other? Every other comment is "this was covered elsewhere" and rehashing of the same arguments in every section. At this point we're just bludgeoning the process and nothing productive is occurring, just flared tempers. Wugapodes (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
We can also turn it around and ask ourselves–what benefit is there to closing it? I suggest we leave it open. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's implicit in my previous statement, but most notably is reduction in the flame wars and circular, unproductive discussions that are going on across three different discussions considering nothing new is being said in them. Wugapodes (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned in WP:RFC#Ending RfCs, one path that might be taken is to close the RfC to allow for another DR step. I support doing this, since I think, as Wugapodes pointed out, that the situation will not grow to be any more productive and I believe we need a higher level of authority to sort this out. —烏Γ (kaw), 02:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Wugapodes:Participants can agree, but this is usually the case when there is strong consensus one way or another. At the moment, there is not, so closing serves no purpose. It is best to leave the RfC open in the hope that more members of the community will see fit to participate.
most notably is reduction in the flame wars and circular, unproductive discussions that are going on across three different discussions That's easily resolved without closing the RfC. Everybody stop posting unless somebody brings up something new or a new editor appears.
Also, regarding your edit summary, "last new editor to discussion was 7 days ago" is incorrect. Beetstra entered the discussion only 36 hours before you posted and Av8 added a vote 20 minutes after your post so new editors are still coming here.
Apologies, I overlooked Beetstra; I thought they were already part of the discussion. Wugapodes (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@KarasuGamma:close the RfC to allow for another DR step - Exactly what step might that be beyond inviting the entire community to provide input, which is what RfC does? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Formal mediation or some form of direct admin involvement. As for suggesting to stop posting to reduce flame wars, the messages you left Objective3000 (which he has since rightfully deleted) show you don't follow your own advice. —烏Γ (kaw), 23:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The messages that I posted were polite requests to stop the tit for tat posting here that he continued to do after I posted my request. There seems to be a common attitude amongst some of the no voters to attack those who voted yes. It really needs to stop. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the fourth false accusation that you have made in a week. Please be civil. Objective3000 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The diffs tell the true story.[34][35] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Please stop attacking editors. Objective3000 (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You're the one engaging in that type of behaviour. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I hope that we get a few more comments from outside participants in the RfC. I would suggest that if a week goes by without any new comments from outside participants, then we should post a close request at WP:AN/RFC.- MrX 14:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
If we wait a week then the RfC default period will only have another 9 days to run, so we may as well wait for the RfC to expire. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline, we don't have to fix everything right now. Please be patient. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
What you're seeing in my comment is not a lack of patience, but a lack of wanting to see this page filled with repetitive arguments. I stand by my proposal, and as a close second choice, I support closing the RfC now. - MrX 15:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
This sort of thing doesn't prove your point. Instead of attacking me, please contribute productively to the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I oppose closing the RfC now. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a notification of this discussion on WT:EL to get additional participation since there doesn't seem to be consensus for a closure right now. If there are wikiprojects or policy pages that you think would be interested, you may also notify them in line with the canvassing policy. I am also withdrawing this as most active participants here have responded and there isn't a clear consensus.Wugapodes (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already an active discussion at ELN regarding this issue, in which the RfC is mentioned. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Round in circles

I am tempted to hat the discussion about the domains because it is reaching Guinness World Records length, as well as developing problems with WP:HORSEMEAT. Everyone has had their say by now, and it is obvious that there is no consensus on how to handle the multiple domains issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. The comments from two months ago seem to be all we needed.
Time to apply WP:ELBURDEN, or will editors continue to edit-war against it too? --Ronz (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're going with this but if it's where I think, I'd like to remind you of this post. If I'm on the wrong track, please accept my apologies. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. Please refrain from such comments again.
What about "Time to apply WP:ELBURDEN" is so confusing? --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit wars will always continue to happen until someone with actual authority makes them stop. —烏Γ (kaw), 23:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd hope not, but that's why I brought it up. --Ronz (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I've redacted my apology, since I was clearly right on track.[36] You promised not to edit-war, but you have. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel the need to focus on editors rather than follow our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
You're being incredibly petty by doing that. —烏Γ (kaw), 01:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
AussieLegend, you and CFCF have continued this edit-war since June. Policy clearly states that links should be removed during discussion when there is no consensus. As I said two months ago, the RfC will be ignored. That is the history of this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It takes two to tango. The policy does not make that explanation under any reading. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Objective3000, I do not appreciate your baseless allegations. My edits to this article have been minimal and productive:
25 May - formatting and removal of the onion link
11 June - tense correction
23 July - WP:REFPUNCT correction
28 July - added note after edit-warring by others (including you) prior to requesting page protection.
31 July - minor article corrections (quote marks, apostrophes, dashes, headings etc)
15 August - reversal of tendentious edit per WP:STATUSQUO
By comparison, both of your edits in the same time period have been edit-warring.[37][38] --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
CFCF changed the same text seven times while ordering everyone else not to change it. He has declared ownership of that text. When one person reverts the changes of several other editors, that is edit-warring. Objective3000 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

ELBURDEN

(edit conflict) ELBURDEN should have been followed from the very beginning of this dispute. Over two months later, I've gone ahead and removed the links once again. Clearly we'll never have consensus for them all, and it doesn't seem likely we'll find consensus for even one. --Ronz (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pointless. They are back, and as I predicted, the RfC and ELN discussions will be ignored. CFCF will not allow anyone but him to edit that field. Objective3000 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is now expired. There's no consensus for any links, much less all. Can we apply ELBURDEN now? --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a request for closure at WP:ANRFC a few days ago. I think we should let an uninvolved editor close it.- MrX 16:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So we have a bot running ahead of the process? No problem. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this entire thread moot? The main ThePirateBay.se server is back, and round-robins to all the rest

Only one link is needed now. That is all, and good night.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, no. We've strong arguments for no links at all. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Not moot. The discussion centers around the interpretation of WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELBURDEN. As far as I know, the status of TPB using multiple domain names has not changed since the start of the RfC. Please let me know if I am mistaken. - MrX 15:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There are equally strong links for inclusion. The RfC resulted from a concern at listing all of the links. There was no concern about listing a single link, which is why the RfC question was posed simply as Should all of the urls for this website be included in the infobox?. This article, like many thousands of others, has existed with a single link in the infobox for many years. Wikipedia readers expect to see a link for online resources. There is clearly wide community consensus for such links in infoboxes, as demonstrated by the fact that {{URL}} is transcluded over 240,000 times.[39] ELBURDEN is therefore irrelevant. Similarly, ELOFFICIAL was never an issue when a single link was included. Since SMcCandlish has restored that link, ELOFFICIAL is irrelevant. Given that we are now back where we were before this edit on 20 May, 3 weeks before this discussion was opened, I have to agree with SMcCandlish that the entire discussion is moot, as much as others may wish it wasn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
There's no point repeating the same argument over and over. We got it the first time. An uninvolved editor will decide which arguments carry the most weight.- MrX 16:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No. There's an important point being made. Unfortunately, the point is to ignore all policies and guidelines while claiming some sort of consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion about a controversial issue should be formally evaluated and closed by an uninvolved administrator. Just wondering, if PirateBay decides to change their domain setup again next month or anytime in the future, do we restart the entire discussion from scratch? Nice idea - but no. GermanJoe (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Removing the excess links does not nullify the RfC. Since we're not a bureaucracy, whoever closes the RfC can consider the additional question of whether any links should be included. - MrX 16:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)But what "controversial issue"? The controversial part was that weird situation of linking to a whole bunch of official websites for the same entity, which we have no "need" to do any longer, if there ever was one (which is very dubious; at any given time, one would have been sufficient). Some people have tried to manufacture a controversy out of ever linking to even one, but they're simply misreading policy and guidelines. Anyway, multiple people have asked WP:ANRFC to close this. My point in posting the news was "you can stop fighting over including multiple domain names now"; that part of the discussion is very definitely moot. I don't really care, and I don't think any closer who understands policy, will care, much about a continued interest in arguing about censoring the article of URLs entirely. Since part of the encyclopedic story of this subject is their domain name shell game, and the article and sources mention all the domains, whether the infobox includes one or not is a moot point, and has been before the discussion even began.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


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).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_8&oldid=784259085"