Talk:CyberBunker

Sovereign state

"declared a sovereign state in 2004" by whom?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) 18:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

By it's government ofcourse, as are all other countries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.178.94 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2005‎

Evidence, please. Or, in the preferred language of Wikipedians, [Citation needed]... There does not appear to be a shred of evidence that Cyberbunker has ever claimed to be a sovereign state. Guy Macon 03:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not sovereign or something like that. No other countries do know the country and it doesn't have an ISO code either so? Does paying for an ISO code or mail routing (who needs snailmail anyway) make your country any more or less a country? from my point of view being a country or not is strictly limited to the capability to keep out intruders ;)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.178.94 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2005‎

While your "point of view" is interesting, an encyclopedia need references to reliable sources. Nobody has ever cited any reference establishing that Cyberbunker claims to be a nation, so I am removing the "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations" tag. Guy Macon 03:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Onkruit

Should the dutch word onkruit be capitialized?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFJR (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It should. (will fix).

Onkruit actually deserves it's own wiki page but i feel i'm not the one to maintain it.

(people whom are actually involved with this organisation also maintain websites and are the ones to present themselves the way -they- want to be presented, as it still is a rather controversial subject.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.10.125 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2005‎‎

A government

In what way have the owners who are/OR/claim-to-be a government acted as a government? If it's a government then what is the population/number of citizens? Is there a constitution (don't need the text of it but a date would belong)?

It's pretty obvious I'm so far unconvinced that they are, rather than claim-to-be, a government, but I'll listen if people have evidence. RJFJR 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you even have evidence that they claim to be a government? I can't find any. Guy Macon 03:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Queen Beatrix knows about this? Movementarian 14:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is possible that they think they are a government, but in my opinion this is not a thing which should be mentioned on Wikipedia, since nobody recognize their government. If they are an independent state, they do not have to confirm to Dutch law and it is not allowed to trade freely with people in other countries I think (because they are not a part of the EU nor signed an agreement with the Dutch government, I suppose), because taxes should be paid. I think this statement about being a state should be removed from the article, because it is just bullshit. This way everybody could say they are an independent state. Maybe the Dutch authorities should be informed, so they can invade the country and reclaim the grounds from the 'foreign country'.

If they really are an independent state, it is reasonable to mention their location (at least), because it is rather strange to be a state but not to announce where your state is. The location is near Goes, in a village called Kloetinge.

-- Hi there,

Read up on the Montevideo Convention 1933. (definition of a state: government (check), defined borders(check), population (check), diplomatic relations(check)) as well as UN resolution 1514. which was already cited here (and basically provides the -right- to run a government)

Besides, as it's a NATO base, and therefore not dutch territory ever since 1955, it's not 'in' kloetinge or 'goes' but 'surrounded by'. just like san marino, the holy see (vatican), portugal, etc are not 'in' the respective countries that surround -them-.

anyway.. are you all either just jealous or clueless or can't read or some politically sponsored idiots who don't want to get the picture here.

greetings, His Royal Highness, Prince Sven Olaf of CyberBunker, Minister of Parliament.

(so far for your references - I personally highly doubt that the (ex-)NATO employees whom we have contact with will utter statements on something like wikipedia with their name anyway so you can't hope for more.. although there are some pages by the people from Onkruit and Fort van Sjakoo (whom appear to have the original paper files from 1981)) That's more of a 'we could tell you but then we'd have to kill you' thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.84.106 (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If the author of the above really is Sven Olaf Kamphuis (owner of Cyberbunker) would you be so kind as to repeat your claim about Cyberbunker being a state on the Cyberbunker webpage? If the owners of Cyberbunker claim statehood, that makes it a candidate for inclusion in the Wikipedia micronations project, but I need more evidence than an anonymous post on a talk page and random websites recycling the statehood claim without any proof. I would very much like to see citations backing up the claim that in 1955 it was a NATO base not under dutch laws (the cyberbunker website just says it was "built by the Dutch Ministry of Defense in 1955") and, assuming that the NATO/not-under-dutch-laws claim is documented, citations about the 1996 decommissioning/selling -- did it revert to dutch rule as one might expect? I see many claims, but no evidence backing those claims up. Guy Macon 03:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely untrue that the grounds are not considered Dutch property due to alleged NATO history of the complex. As stated below, this facility never was a NATO bunker. Further, in the past construction work on the "CyberBunker" had been halted as there were building permit problems with the Dutch government. Also, the use of the bunker is regulated by Dutch zoning regulations. The XTC lab once located in the bunker also resulted in legal consequences. This all goes to show that what goes on inside the bunker does have to comply with Dutch law.BabyNuke (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Failed AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberBunker. Johnleemk | Talk 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

UN resolution 1514(XV) (2) states that all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development

there you go..

This Page is an Advertisement

This webpage is clearly written as an advertisement for cyberbunker (especially since it is linked to from the cyberbunker website) and also makes many claims which could easily be documented (if they are true) but instead there is no documentation in the entire article. Why is this article even here? If you are going to make an article about such a specific topic (which maybe you shouldn't) then why not write a valid article at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rageasaurus (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just rewrote it to be less like an ad. It still needs a lot of work, especially in the area of references and citations, but it's a bit better now. Guy Macon 03:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral language

This is definitely not neutral. The sentence makes Europe look like a threatened entity which itself didn't attend the cold war warfare race: "It remains a sobering reminder of how Europe lived with and prepared for the possibility of a Soviet nuclear attack." --GDR! (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When Lawyers Attack

Lats month, http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studios-threaten-strike-on-pirate-bay-nuclear-bunker-100422/ talked about the MPA threatening cyberbunker with legal action over their hosting of The Pirate Bay and other sites. Now http://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-gets-injunction-to-disconnect-the-pirate-bay-100512/ says that Columbia Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. have obtained a preliminary injunction against the owners of cyberbunker from the Regional Court of Hamburg, prohibiting them from connecting The Pirate Bay website and associated servers to the Internet.

I am waiting for more reliable sources before putting this info in the main article. Guy Macon 08:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

English translation of the injunction and response from Cyberbunker owner: http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-cyberbunker-mpa-injunction-in-full-100516/ Guy Macon 09:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As I predicted, this is getting plenty of press: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/Segments/NewsHeadlines/Print.asp?Module=News&id=62721A2DF43D4623B1227796B2302D64 http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-goes-down-following-legal-pressure-100517/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/pirate_bay_injunction/ http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=16223 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/may/17/pirate-bay-offline http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/08/24/the-pirate-bay-officially-sunk

And as I and everybody else predicted, TPB simply moved -- but to a surprising new host http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-party-becomes-the-pirate-bays-new-host-100518/ http://thepiratebay.org/blog

After the smoke clears, someone should write up a section about this on th Cyberbunker main page. Guy Macon 13:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ha!

They have an indoor swimming pool? Sign me up! 58.6.251.53 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not just any indoor swimming pool... They have a subtropical indoor swimming pool. Guy Macon 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

White Mountain

There should be a reference to the White Mountain cyber bunker as well, known from WikiLeaks and Pirate Bay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.143.118 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[Citation Needed] - Guy Macon —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Joe Baptista

There is this guy called Joe Baptista who is deliberately attempting to harass the CyberBunker crew with lies and untrue stories. It has something to do with a personal vendetta against one of the managers. We think this is something that should not belong here. Here is what others say about Joe Baptista: http://whocalled.us/lookup/4169126551 (bottom) http://inaic.com/index.php?p=internet-terror — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perinda (talk • contribs) 08:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Easterners whom think they know better

Cyberbunker is not a country. It was probably some post-soviet Eastern delinquint who has an ego which happens to manifest as the face of this organization. Ofcourse this individual is totally wrong with their views and assumptions, and is creating a path of meaningless stress and destruction on the world for no reason whatsoever. The internet does have to be regulated, otherwise the common people have power, which is very obviously bad because they do not actually know what the ideal system is, they only focus on one thing like internet freedom and are ignorant of everything else. You know what would happen if everyone was free for a day? The world would end abruptly. We cannot sustain individual animalistic behaviour with this population and resource base. Cut your bs you wronged idiots, your only creating more chaos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.151.25 (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

History of the bunker

As I happen to enjoy a bit of military history I was surprised to read the history of this bunker as described on this page. To my knowledge (and various sources agree with this [1], [2]) the bunker was constructed by the Dutch military (not NATO) as a Provincial Command Center. I'm changing the article to match these descriptions.BabyNuke (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

ThePirateBay is not a Tracker

Either theres trackersaffiliated to The Pirate Bay's torrents or the WEBSITE s hosted there, i haven't verified, but The pirate bay is not a bittorrent tracker. Please correct. (i know WP toomuch to do it myself, i'll be rewritten/deleted/reverted/yelled at) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.4.50.252 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No longer in the bunker?

According to this article, Cyberbunker has no (current?) association with the bunker. Phiwum (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

what article? [Error 404 Not Found] -- 79.21.61.64 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

public pillory?

I really cant see a valid non-POV motivation to the removal of some infos contained in this revision .. The "Rule" is not "avoid every info that couldnt be used by Spamhaus against Cyberbunker !

1) Is it a Republic? I dont know. I see that they (cyberbunker) declared so but i cant see proof against their right to do so. If the soil is *not* Dutch territory, they seems to have the right to become a nation-state. I think we should at least keep some wikilinks to the Montevideo convention, that UN resolution (1514) and to San Marino and Vatican City examples.

2) "they gained worldwide notoriety" after hosting TPB and wikipedia" :

Yes. I'm italian and here Cyberbunker was already known well before the Spamhaus accusations about a "DDoS". It was well known in the world in 2009 (TPB hosting). Spam allegation by blacklists creators is a normal thing for an ISP, i'm not saying this is a "right" thing, i'm saying that sometimes an entire upstream ISP get blacklisted instead of a single IP.

3) Stophaus:

I think the accusation (by stophaus and cyberbunker) to Spamhaus of alledged blackmail/extorsion-tactics against Tinet, A2B Tinet Tata Communications and others are to be kept.

Still i cant see a valid argument against "Russia Today" as valid source, so it should be reinstered. We have to respect WP:NPOV and since there are 2 parties involved (Cyberbunker and Spamhaus) we cant keep only the Spamhaus accusation to Cyberbunker, we have to keep also the ones made by Cyberbunker against Spamhaus.

4) Stophaus link "untrusted" by "Weboftrust" ? Is it an effect of some Spamhaus blacklist being adopted here on wikipedia? (srsly?)

Stophaus is an association of providers/users created to contrast the alledged "censorship power of Spamhaus". I cant see a valid way for it to be "blacklisted" here on wikipedia.

• OT: In the past i've seen we (wikipedia users) against ACTA/SOPA/PIPA censorship initiative, initiative by governments (under Hollywood lobbies pressure) to apply heavy censorship and control over the Internet.

How comes that this new one is not a similarly important case? Is government sponsored censorship different from enterprise sponsored censorship ? I dont think so.

Censorship by blacklist (or other means) is always bad: be it by a government law or by a corporate blacklist.

--79.21.61.64 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Does CyberBunker issue passports? Does CyberBunker have a functional government? Does CyberBunker have a permanent registered population and if so, how big is it? Does CyberBunker have a constitution or any other form of law? Is CyberBunker considered exempt from Dutch law? Does CyberBunker have border crossings? I can call my own house a "Republic", doesn't make it one.

You may have noticed that I did actually remove a claim that was only found on the Spamhaus website (regarding the RBN) with no further details gvein. I couldn't find any other source to back this up, only articles which linked back to Spamhaus, so for the sake of NPOV I removed that. I do try to maintain neutrality in this article.

The weboftrust edit wasn't my work so I won't go there. However, since the Stophaus section was removed, the link might as well be removed, too.BabyNuke (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

unprotection

I've just made a request for unprotection.

The sources i've posted (pcmag.com, rt.com etc. ) are legit sources and the reason that a user believes that i'm a "proxy" just because i'm writing from Italy is pretestuos.

also i cant see an "Edit War", since the article hasnt seen a rollback war recently: not only in the last 24 hours, but also in the few days preceding the page lock, there was simply NO "Edit War".

"Edit War" also require at least two subjects, who are these subjects?? --79.21.61.64 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is deleting parts of the article that you don't agree with (eg. the XTC lab - doesn't make CyberBunker sound very nice now does it?) and attempting to make the CyberBunker more sensational than it really is. The forum that received its own separate section had only a handful of posts on it and was hardly worth mentioning; adding stuff like that makes the page read like an advertisement. The sources you post may be reputable, but the information deduced from them is stretched if not completely made up. For example, PCMag never said that CyberBunker's website was under a DOS attack, merely that it was hard to reach.

The same with referencing stuff suggesting that it proves CyberBunker being an independent state. If it really was then the three guys running an XTC lab in it wouldn't have been thrown in a Dutch prison and things like Dutch zoning regulations wouldn't apply. It is fictional - excuse my wording - bullshit written to hype up the article and make CyberBunker seem like more than it really is. Likewise claiming that it's a former NATO bunker when it was never anything of the sort. Already the NATO claim made it into various news articles because people can't be bothered to do their research.

I requested protection not because of an edit war, but because this article relates to a current event. Various news sources have been seen quoting this Wikipedia article because it's one of the few sources of information that exist on it (and because it scores high on search engines). Given this, it makes sense to semi-protect the article to prevent constant edits from anon-IPs which are all highly biased and this blatantly incorrect and / or biased information ending up outside of wikipedia. I am sure you are aware of this as well and are trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoints, defend CyberBunker by portraying it as the victim of great injustice caused by the evil that is Spamhaus and by removing information that makes CyberBunker look bad.

As for being a proxy, it's just something that seems suspicious. But I'll admit that I can't prove anything. 79.21.61.64, 87.5.33.4 and 79.41.12.50 are all Italian IPs. 46.115.101.67 traces to Germany. All the edits from these IPs have a similar tone to it, know a great deal about CyberBunker and I suspect it's the same user, or at least people from the same "circle". Why don't you make an account here on Wikipedia to make it clear which edits are yours and which are by other users? This will allow you to resume editing this article as well in the long run (provided the protection doesn't end sooner).

If you wish to see anything edited you can always use the talk page to make recommendations. If other users agree they can make the edits for you. BabyNuke (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is deleting parts of the article that you don't agree with (eg. the XTC lab

XTC?! what are you talking about?!?

this --> my first edit on the cyberbunker wiki-page

as you can see there was nothing about "XTC". You're accusing the wrong user.

AFAIK i removed nothing.

you are the one that removed everything i added. As you can see: here and here i added informations, i deleted only a "citation needed" string about Russia Today because it is a well known news-TV.

he forum that received its own separate section had only a handful of posts on it and was hardly worth mentioning; adding stuff like that makes the page read like an advertisement.

political movements are worth a note/paragraphs. That forum seems to still have few posts just because the forum itself has born a week or two ago (have a look to web.archive.org, there's no chached page yet)

For example, PCMag never said that CyberBunker's website was under a DOS attack, merely that it was hard to reach.

I visited the website yesterday at zirca 18 or 19 o'clock (italian time GMT+1) and the website was ok. Less than 10 hours later i visited it again and it was impossible to connect to it (host was not reachable).

Since the article was written on 27th March i presumed there was a DDoS against the site, since it was alternating long periods of connectivity with long periods of 'blackout'.

right now the website is reachable. Ok maybe i was someway imprecise regarding the statement "cyberbunker under ddos attack".

The same with referencing stuff suggesting that it proves CyberBunker being an independent state.

If there're UN resolutions etc etc that allows people to create a nation-state on a territory that is not part of any other state, it's up to the owner to decide if they want to declare it a nation-state. Since on their site they wrote they have chosen to do so, i cant see why not to mention it.

Already the NATO claim made it into various news articles because people can't be bothered to do their research.

from the research i did yesterday it emerges that that zone has become, years and years ago, property of the Dutch army before it was sold to the actual owners. There're claims that in the process (from NATO to Dutch army to actual_owners) it never changed national status (aka: it never became part of Dutch soil again)

prevent constant edits from anon-IPs

"anon"-IPs ? i'm as "anonymous" as you.

IP doesnt mean "anonymous".

In fact, to the eye of a read-only visitor (like the various news source that "come here to have infos") you are way more anonymous than me.

I dont know where you are from, maybe you are italian ( :-) ) and you decided to be a registered user to avoid accusations of "being a proxy 'cause of your italian ip"

, defend CyberBunker by portraying it as the victim of great injustice caused by the evil that is Spamhaus and by removing information that makes CyberBunker look bad.

for your information cyberbunker is not the only victim of Spamhaus. If you do your homework you can find many others, for example A2B, the upstream provider of cyberbunker (the alledged extorcion whose goal was to cut cyberbunker connectivity) was a victim. Another notable one is the CERT.lv ---> here. Now please dont tell me "they're spammers" !

46.115.101.67

^---- LOL ----^ it's a MOBILE user.

extracted from whois record: inetnum: 46.115.0.0 - 46.115.255.255 netname: E-PLUS-MOBILES-BLOCK-6 descr: IPv4 addresses dynamic assigned to mobil devices country: DE source: RIPE # Filtered role: E-PLUS ADMIN GROUP address: Germany 40472 Duesseldorf route: 46.114.0.0/15 descr: E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH & Co KG

I like very much Spock from Star Trek but its fiction. Do you expect me to be teleporting from Italy to Germany?

know a great deal about CyberBunker and I suspect it's the same user

Google Check user is your friend !

All the edits from these IPs have a similar tone to it, know a great deal about CyberBunker

I've made some research yesterday. :-) Also appreciate whoever try to defend the free speech and try to fight the constant "China-ization" of western Internet censoreship. Less than 2 days ago all i knew about cyberbunker was only related to the TPB and wikileaks stories.

If you wish to see anything edited you can always use the talk page to make recommendations. If other users agree they can make the edits for you

ok

1. that "government" thing could be reinserted. We can simply say that they autodeclared that place "a nation-state" but no other nations recognized it. Obviously citing the UN resolution etcetera
2. "CloudFlare, [...] assisting Spamhaus in 'combating' the DOS attack was also targeted.[11]" <--that word is wrong. "combating" DDoS has no sense. Instead the right one is "mitigating"
3. there's the need to put back "stophaus.com" in the "External links" section. The excuse "the 'Weboftrust' distrust it" is pure nonsense, i can argue that "google safe browsing" told me it has found no malware/threat on that website.
4. the RT link should be reintegrated. As i said: omitting that source is like omitting a CNN link or a BBC link. Russia Today is a reliable source

--79.21.61.64 (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Statement from BunkerInfra

BunkerInfra.com

So no, the "CyberBunker" isn't even in Kloetinge anymore. BabyNuke (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

how can you say that? maybe "bunkerinfra" is a reseller of cyberbunker (in http://cyberbunker.com/web/faq-general.php# you can read: "I want to become a reseller of your products. Is that possible?" ) -_- --79.21.61.64 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

another source supporting the news about a DDoS against cyberbunker.com : https://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/ddos-spam-feud-backfires-bulletproof-cyb/240151895

it's the second journalist saying that the website 'seems' to have be targeted by a DDoS attack --79.21.61.64 (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Added the possible DDoS attack on CyberBunker including your reference. However there's no reason to believe Pionen is actually a part of CyberBunker or that BunkerInfra is a CyberBunker customer; those theories make no sense. BabyNuke (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

customer? I've said something very different: "reseller", not "customer". --79.21.97.55 (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Bunkerinfra made a very detailed statement that they are neither related to "Cyberbunker" nor did the facility ever have an underground swimmingpool. According to Bunkerinfra, "Cyberbunker" deserted the location more than 10 years ago. See here: Bunkerinfra statement 149.172.251.235 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

cyberbunker is hosting wikileaks

sources: http://rt.com/news/spamhaus-threat-cyberbunker-ddos-attack-956/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/when-hacktivism-meets-crime/ http://www.realcleartechnology.com/2013/03/28/does_it_all_lead_back_to_wikileaks_12124.html

these two sources report that the bunker cyberbunker used to host wikileaks another one, in Sweden (according to cyberbunker they have more than one bunker, in different countries) http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/08/30/wikileaks-servers-move-to-underground-nuclear-bunker/?boxes=businesschanneltopstories https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10018210

other source: "TPB AFK" (the film) Gottfried (one of the TPB team) was the one that meet Julian Assange to arrange the hosting to the bunker. --79.21.61.64 (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The Swedish bunker is unrelated. I just don't see any clear connection between them and CyberBunker. However the RT interview does have Sven stating that CB ran a WikiLeaks mirror at some point. The Pirate Bay Seems easier to track down; several articles confirm CyberBunker has served as a host. BabyNuke (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Facts:

1. Cyberbunker hosted TPB (we agree on this, right?)
2. Gottfrid Svartholm is part of the The pirate bay team and of the Wikileaks team. (do you agree?)
3. Gottfrid Svartholm was the one that helped Julian Assange in the migration of the Wikileaks servers to "a bunker", right? source: the film (79816060ea56d56f2a2148cd45705511079f9bca) [minute 53]
4. (extra proof) In the film it is also cited the role of "Pirate Party/ies" in the hosting of TPB and also in the hosting of Wikileaks. In one of the "omitted" source there were also some photos of the Dutch bunker with a member (Svev Something, i think) of cyberbunker.com carrying a flag of that party.
5. it's apparent that in this case (Wikileaks) with the word "Cyberbunker" we are not talking about "the bunker in Kloetinge", we're talking about "the same company" (.com) that hosted TPB before. That same company (cyberbunker.com) has several bunkers. One of them is/(was?) located in Kloetinge and another one is located in Sweden. So the Swedish bunker of cyberbunker.com hosted Wikileaks. --79.21.97.55 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

'

@Babynuke, this edit is wrong. It's not "as many Wikileaks mirrors " but "as the main " Wikileaks website. Not a mirror. The several wikileaks mirrors were made by volontiers. In the case of the cyberbunker hosting Wikileaks, Assange paid money to host wikileaks there. [source: again the "TPB AFK" film @53th min.] --79.21.97.55 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it seems that Cyberbunker - regardless of where the server was actually located - has hosted TPB. I don't know if they still do, I'm not a detective. Gottfrid Svartholm was part of TPB, but I don't see how he connects to CyberBunker other than that. Wikileaks was hosted in the Pionen bunker complex as mentioned before, which is operated by Bahnhof, not CyberBunker. And even CyberBunker doesn't claim to have hosted anything more than a Wikileaks mirror.

Read this from the Russia Today interview with Sven Olaf Kamphuis: "We did have contact with some Wikileaks people back in the days when there were some issues but it didn’t get any further than them running a Wikileaks mirror in the end. The original plan was to put it all in one of our facilities."

Further speculation is useless if there's no solid evidence. Bahnhof / Pionen is not CyberBunker and CyberBunker doesn't claim to have hosted anything other than a Wikilinks mirror. I don't know why you still claim they do if even they say that they didn't do it (and CyberBunker seems to enjoy exaggerating the truth).BabyNuke (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Myth?

It appears the claims of hosting within an ex-NATO bunker may be based on a marketing ploy and Photoshopping, as per http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/cyberbunker-hacking-as-performance-art. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The article already reflects that in its current revision. CyberBunker hasn't been hosted in the bunker they claim to be in for years. I've removed the photo of the bunker though and edited the caption of the server photo to avoid any possible confusion.BabyNuke (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Good edits. But, there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that servers were ever located there; and there is now evidence that they were not from an apparent reliable source. This article still appears to be an advertisement whose original source is the owner of the company it advertises. And he does not appear to be a very reliable source with several, recent, contradictory statements; some of which, at least, appear to be based on possible racial paranoia or animus.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there is. For example, the BunkerInfra press release (see above) states: "12 years ago, an organization named the Cyberbunker was housed here, mister Sven Kamphuis was a member of this organization. After a fire in 2002, the storage of data was stopped based on a decision by the municipality.". If the current owner - who does not wish to be associated with CyberBunker at all - substantiates that they were indeed once located there, then I have no reason to doubt that. I would imagine that as the current owner BunkerInfra has a good understanding of the history of the bunker. News reports from 2002 also mention CyberBunker in relation to the fire and an online report from the local firebrigade states that an "internet company" was located at the site at the time of the fire, though admittedly it does not specifically name it as CyberBunker. I agree though that there's a lot of confusion, lies and false claims.BabyNuke (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Those photographs were clearly fake, but to be honest I'd never considered that their claims to be in the bunker might be questionable until now. Given the alleged business practices of Cyberbunker, I can see that there might be some value for them in concealing the physical location of their operation. Shritwod (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123170153/http://www.datacentrumgids.nl/datacentrum/cyberbunker-com to http://www.datacentrumgids.nl/datacentrum/cyberbunker-com

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)