Talk:The Pirate Bay

lead rewrite and various updates

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

I am also noticing that the Infobos displays some very outdated informations about cryptomining, and donations are also arguably not a significant source of income as the current operator stated, but I'll keep that for now.

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

Onion links were blacklisted by Wikipedia a decade ago. I would be careful with using the operators of the site as reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It also runs into problems with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Incidentally, TPB has been offline for at least the last two days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ianmacm That's a very good reason to add the onion link. Outages of the www site are frequent enough to legitimize the insertion in my opinion.

@Objective3000 I noticed that, I was prevented from adding the link so I decided to make an official request for unban here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Allow_thepirateby_onion_site_link

If the org domain is accepted as reliable the tor one which is directly linked on the org page should as well. In any case there are other reliable sources reporting on it: https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-switches-to-a-brand-new-v3-onion-domain-210809/ Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I just tried to access TPB and got a popup demanding I install an extension that has a bad reputation. I tried on another browser and got a scam popup. I tried a third browser and got a popup to install Flash, which is unsafe and blocked by most browsers last I heard. I removed the url. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

well you shouldn't, that is the official url, no matter the advertisement used. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you want an encyclopedia to link to a site that tries to install malware? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it's relevant enough. Also I would avoid evaluating the concrete risk for malware here. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I Googled the software the first popup said I had to install to use the site and found many folks asking how I get it off their machines. The second was one of those popups you get claiming your PC has XXX viruses and click to repair it. That is a very common method of installing an actual virus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I just tried several more times using a sandbox to get to TPB. The first couple sent me to nudebay.com. The next was stopped attempting to install a keylogger. The last was stopped by Windows Defender as unsafe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This could consitute important additions to add on the body of the articles, as long as you can find sources to support the claims. If the relevance is established it could even, in my opinion, be worth of an addition on lead section regarding their funding using scam links, the reasoning for it and such. But again, it needs sources not your own original research.

All of this still doesn't make for a case for removing the link. We are talking about a link that is of enormous relevance for the whole page: the blocking from some state actors, the org domain being used, 20 years of iterations etc This isn't some minor stuff. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What sources? The only source that talks about them is TorrentFreak and they are long time friends. Google it and you will see all sorts of complaints and unsafe warnings. But not from RS because RS no longer have any reason to talk about them. And what do you mean by {tq|some state actors}}? That sounds like you are insinuating that countries are doing something evil for enforcing their laws. And I said nothing about funding. As for 20 years, do you know who runs the site or where it is or if it is the same? Last I traced it, it was in Bulgaria. It is irresponsible for us to link to a site that risks our users devices. Children can use Wikipedia.

Look, if someone really wants to steal a movie or look at porn, they can Goggle it without our providing a link. We provide the site name. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You are providing zero sources about your claims against Torrent Freak, which is a reliable outlet about piracy topics.

We still need source to add the idea that they serve malware, specificy what kind of malware, for what reason (funding, pure evilness, who knows) etc not your original research.

And I've used a very neutral tone about state actors blocking the site. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have finished my work on the lead. I think that the first paragraph is now extremelly more readable. Before my intervention it suffered from being exceptionally obscure, mixing technical terms with very few common words and not providing a simple statement about why the topic is notable, which it now does.

I only slightly changed the other paragraphs, trying to follow a partially historical progression that ends with a more broad cultural relevance.

The missing part of the work would be to move all the references, sometimes too abundant, on the body of the article in order to provide a cleaner look to the lead. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User @Ianmacm removed my addition to the lead that stated:

More than 20 years after its creation, The Pirate Bay is still one the most popular torrent site worldwide.

With the reasoning "his isn't really needed in the opening paragraph and could be seen as WP:PEACOCK for the site"

I'll proceed to change "popular" to "visited", and rephrase the time span as well to make it the most neutral. Just to be clear about the core of the edit though, this is an essential information to have on the lead. As for WP:LEAD The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences..

Looking at other major internet websites they all establish notability by mentioning visitors, which is clearly what makes a website notable. Without that the reading makes no sense, since you would not understand the reason for the raids, trials, broader cultural significance.

Twitter

Second sentence : It is one of the world's largest social media websites and one of the most visited websites in the world.

Facebook

End of first paragraph : As of October 2023, Facebook ranked as the third-most-visited website in the world, with 22.56% of its traffic coming from the United States. It was the most downloaded mobile app of the 2010s.

Amazon

First paragraph : It is considered one of the Big Five American technology companies Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

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

1) It is necessary to establish notability in the first paragraph, I provided exemples for it from similar pages and a link to the official guideline.

2) Precise sources are present on body of the article, from Alexa ranking to Torrent Freak.

3) It is not only the "most long lasting", it is one of the "most visited". This doesn't have any peacock wording.

I am restoring my edit and adding sources directly on lead to avoid any confusion. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• I just clicked again on the TPB link in the infobox. This time BitDefender blocked a redirect to a phishing site. I do not understand any rationale for purposely endangering our users. Frankly, I think Wikipedia could be liable for damages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

According to VirusTotal, the TPB website itself is clean [5] but it is the pop up ads that could be causing the problem. Definitely recommended to use an ad blocker.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

VirusTotal says BitDefender says clean. But I just tried two more times and received two more BitDefender phishing attempt warnings, to a total of three different urls. But, it's not blocking thepiratebay. It is blocking a popup or a redirect. So why does it matter if the landing page is considered safe if it loads a second page which is a phishing site? We cannot assume our users use popup blockers. I don't. The behavior is constantly changing. Sometimes it redirects to nudebay, sometimes scam popups appear, sometimes Windows Defender or BitDefender blocks, sometimes nothing happens at all. TPB has two decades of experience with avoiding various types of blocks. It's no surprise that they are using that experience in this manner. These are not annoying ads. These are attempts to install keyloggers and phishing attempts that can result in serious financial damage. In the end, we are endangering our users and I see no reason for this as anyone can Google it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is your research. Virustotal says otherwise. Like the top of this talk page says Wikipedia is not censored. Even if their homepage servs adware the link is extremelly significant. It is also arguably more safe to have a link to an official site that let extremelly nefarious mirrors have their way.

If Wikipedia will be liable for dammage, Wikipedia lawyers will be the one working on it. After 20 years, I doubt that it will be the case. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither WP:CENSOR nor WP:OR prevent us from using good editorial judgement. Your request to whitelist the TPB Onion link was declined along with the statement: Absolutely not. There is absolutely no reason to link to thepiratebay anywhere on Wikipedia. It cannot be used as a source, and is not necessary in the article about it.[6] O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They don't give any reasoning behind it. Even though an admin is expressing this view this is, for me, a clear attempt at censorship. Other torrent sites have their link up.

We can move this discussion to a RfC and look for consensus. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

And you have given no reason why you want to link to a site that is directing the browser to phishing sites. TotalVirus says BitDefender does not mark TPB a dangerous page. That is correct. That one page is not dangerous in and of itself. It's the additional page that is being forced into your browser. When I go to TPB, BitDefender does not block the page. It's blocks the second pag, logging that it is unsafe. So, TPB can beat TotalVirus while still forcing you into dangerous pages. They've been going around various blocks for decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the link is relevant, Wikipedia pages link to websites. That's all.

Your analysis of pishing and malware are original research, I am getting different results myself. This is, for me, a blatant attempt at censorship. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not link to every website. WP:LINKFARM And I also keep getting different results, as opposed to what one would expect - just the linked page instead of a phishing scam. As for censorship, I'm sorry but that's simply absurd. Not including a link is not censorship. We have a large number of unacceptable links, including "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States." WP:ELNO O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Not "every website", we are talking about the main website.

You don't even read the pages you link... WP:ELNO clearly states:

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:

it also states

Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.

Like I've said from the beginning:

1) You are not the judge to decide if The Pirate Bay serves malware.

2) The link is relevant anyway. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the infobox gudelines state it must be the official url. You stated yourself that it isn't their official url and attempted to change it. Now you insist their non-official url be in the infobox. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I never said the .org url isn't their official url. It is their official url. Together with the onion url which is for the tor network.

Also your whole idea of removing the official url would risk exposing visitors to really malicious urls, as it happened with zlibrary: https://cybernews.com/security/zlibrary-copycat-exposes-millions-digital-pirates/ Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't know what your point is. And I certainly did not say removing the url would expose users. I said the opposite. Your link points to an article about the extreme dangers of hacking. That's exactly why we should remove a link to a site that has a long history of spreading malware and who's link itself exposes users to malware. Why would any responsible human consider such? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The article I posted points to the extreme danger of users visiting a scam site when they cannot find the original. Which is what I am stating are the consequences, in my opinion, of your idea. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment for The Pirate Bay link on page

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include the official link in the infobox. While editors disagreed on whether the site actually served malware, editors justified the inclusion of the link under WP:ELOFFICIAL, which encourages the inclusion of official links and provides that official links are exempt from the restrictions on adding links containing malware. Editors did not discuss WP:ELNEVER or the possibility of including onion links, however, both of these points have been discussed previously on the talk page. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 05:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

---

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

• Yes per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The abovementioned popups in the official link don't occur in my Firefox (with ad blocker) and Brave. In Google Chrome the popup appeared only once, disappearing after browser restart. Brandmeister^talk 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Appears to be random. For me about one-third of the time one of the following occurs: redirect to nudebay, immediate warning from Windows Defender or BitDefender of a keylogger or phishing page, fake warning from McAfee or Norton (which I don't have) with link to phishing site. Just tried a bunch of times again and BitDefender logs show there were blocks to three different phishing sites. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Based on the discussion above it seems to be just a single user encountering popups for adware; that isn't enough to meet the criteria for WP:ELNO point 3, which requires actual malware, trojans, exploits, etc. before a site becomes unusable. A more obvious problem is the copyright violations; my opinion, however, is that the prohibition in ELNO point 3 is intended for more serious issues than that. If the mere fact that a site provides links to material that violates copyright alone were enough to bar us from linking to it, sites like the Internet Library would also be banned, which is nonsensical. --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been having a look round the TPB website with the browser add-on Bitdefender Traffic Light installed and it didn't complain about any of the pages. That's not to say that none of the pages have ads or pop-ups that could be a problem, but I am also using the Brave browser and this gets rid of nearly all junk. Also no complaints from Windows Security.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking at the BitDefender log and launching the TPB main page? I've tried on three days and the BitDefender log has dozens of "phishing attempted detected" messages. This occurs with Edge, FireFox, and Chrome. I've also tried in a sandbox, which is virgin Windows without my installed apps, and it gets warnings from Defender. Some adblockers may block these silently. But like hundreds of millions of people, I don't use an adblocker. Of course if you Google Pirate Bay virus, you get a couple pages of complaints and warnings over decades. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I tried the main page while doing this. (screenshot) Like many websites, TPB sets off various positives for ads and trackers, but for me it doesn't set off phishing/malware warnings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes 1) Actual malware being served by a website is different than generic allerts than an antivirus gives.

2) WP:ELNO clearly states that even for malware this is Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject.

3) Removing a link to TPB would have a chilling effect on all the other torrent pages on Wikipedia. There are multiples and all have their link up. They do actually prevent people from getting scammed by nefarious clones : https://cybernews.com/security/zlibrary-copycat-exposes-millions-digital-pirates/ Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Actual malware being served by a website is different than generic allerts than an antivirus gives. It does serve malware. My anti-virus software blocked it. It also redirected me to nudebay several times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You are not a global reference for malware analysis. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not asking for an addition to mainspace. Although I have been in the tech field for over a half-century and lectured on such on five continents. I followed the link without an adblocker and received over a dozen warnings from respected anti-virus software applications. This is hardly surprising from a site where the founders went to prison, it has been chased from country to country by multiple governments, has as its sole purpose and even name (Pirate Bay) violation of laws, has specifically stated in the past that they will allow child pornography, is run anonymously, and has a long history of serving malware as can be seen on the innumerable complaints on a Google search. But you have your opinion and have !voted. I think it sad that we advertise and link to a dangerous site that has been banned in so many countries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes The link works, seems very logical to be here as a reference and doesn't break any policies in WP:ELNO nor WP:ELOFFICIAL that I can see. I smell consensus. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - The people that go there deserve to have their machines damaged and ids stolen. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Further comment on link

Consensus was achieved on including the link, but I would like to further highlight some relevant policy:

From WP:ELNEVER:

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

Obviously the site does not satisfy fair use. An argument was made that compares this to linking The Internet Archive but from WP:COPYLINK:

The copyright status of web archives in the United States is unclear. On Wikipedia it is currently acceptable to link to archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.

I think the relevant passages supporting this consensus are also found in WP:COPYLINK:

If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. 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 [1]); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Note the specific emphasis on particular works - I think an explicit exception is laid out for the overall site itself:

In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.

Tule-hog (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

On the Internet Archive, it is acceptable because any site can opt out of it using their robots.txt file. I do this myself on one of my sites as it is a forum and the copyright for all posts belong to the posters. As for TPB, realize that many Wikipedia editors do not believe in copyright and have no problem with people stealing the hard work of others. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 You keep engaging in disruptive editing.

- You make personal attacks and assumptions about other editors.

- You keep disregarding the value of the previous RfC and refuse to engage with the arguments of others.

- You just completelly ignored the Wikipedia policy to which you replied.

- Lastly, you tried to add a warning based (again and again) on your own personal research.

I ask you, again, to stop. You are wasting other peoples time. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you responded to an eight-week old post in this manner. But I suggest that you strike these multiple false accusations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I just explained why I answered. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Confused

This is from the artuicle:

In April 2009, the website's founders Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine. They were all released by 2015 after serving shortened sentences.

Weren't they imprisoned for a year? How come they are released 6 years after the trial while receiving shortened sentences? 121.122.122.247 (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of them spent some time evading the authorities before being captured and made to serve their sentences. If you click through and read the citation it is explained. MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

citation

hello YisroelB501, thank you for coming to edit. I deleted your addition of a source because a medium blog will surelly be considered less reliable than a torrentfreak article. Also that blog is probalby feeding on torrentfreak itself for the reporting. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

but there should be variaty of sorces. this article shouldnt rely on just Torrentfreak YisroelB501 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, it shouldn't even use Torrentfreak due to its years of acting as a mouthpiece for TPB. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501 The article doesn't just rely on torrentfreak. There already are other sources to establish the notability statement. What I am saying is that for that specific year, the random medium blog you added is probably feeding from torrentfreak. And a medium blog is not usually considered reliable. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

URL warning

Ianmacm, I agree with nearly all of your edits. But not the removal of a warning that your PC may be damaged if you click on a link. Following is one of the warnings I receive:

We blocked this dangerous page for your protection: https://astoundweighadjoining.com/ Dangerous pages attempt to install software that can harm the device, gather personal information or operate without your consent.

That is one of the links in popups that can be forced when you click on the link in our article. TPB rotates popups so which, if any, you get is not predictable. Here is the VirusTotal report on that link: [7]. I do not believe WP:NODISCLAIMERS applies as this is not a statement that the article is not appropriate, suitable, or guaranteed. It is a simple note that clicking on a specific link is dangerous without adequate and up to date antivirus software. If we must include a link that can damage your PC, the least we can do is warn that the link is dangerous. To not include a warning is irresponsible, at the least. rgds, O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I am worried about WP:NODISCLAIMERS here, because all external links on Wikipedia cannot be guaranteed safe as Wikipedia has no control over them. All articles are covered by the General Disclaimer linked at the foot of every page, which says that "all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever." I was also looking at Talk:The_Pirate_Bay#Request_for_comment_for_The_Pirate_Bay_link_on_page, which did not reach a firm conclusion on whether the link was dangerous. As I said, I could not set off warnings with Bitdefender Traffic Light.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been getting warnings from BitDefender for three months on that link. They don't always occur. It depends on which popup their server forces. We have a boilerplate disclaimer because mistakes can be made. But like the false disclaimer on restaurant cloakrooms ("not responsible for lost or damaged items") such disclaimers have little meaning. Of course the restaurant is responsible and of course we are if we knowingly endanger a reader. Bitdefender Traffic Light is the free version. As I understand it, it flags links based on urls it has tested in the past. BitDefender marks the url thepiratebay/index.html as a safe url as there is no malware on that specific page. However, if you have the paid version of BitDefender, it also checks the forced popups, issues a warning and blocks any damage. This is why VirusTotal shows BitDefender claiming thepiratebay url as safe but the popups as malware. You need to pay to get the real antivirus version. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Another problem here is WP:OR. There need to be secondary reliable sources, rather than experiments with antivirus programs and browser plugins. As I've said before, I'm not disputing that some antivirus programs may set off warnings about TPB, but there needs to be secondary sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an OR problem if we state in the text your PC will be damaged. I don't know about a link warning. I think there are many sources that says TPB links to malware. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure those sources aren't talking about pop-up adds. Further actions would be needed to download software and damage a PC. Sketchy pop-up advertisements are a fact of the internet across many sites, and it's not a general practice to put disclaimers on links with such ads across Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we'd single out this site over others. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I get popups every day without any notification from BitDefender. Except for TPB. Simply clicking on the link in this article, I get a message from BitDefender saying that it blocked a URL. The URL is launched by the TPB server. There is no needed action by the user other than clicking on the link here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie There is zero reason to have a disclaimer for pop up ads or alleged malware.

- WP:NODISCLAIMERS clearly states that:

For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages:

WP:RISK

The authors may not be qualified to provide you with complete information or to inform you about adequate safety precautions and other measures to prevent injury, or other damage to your person, property, or reputation.

- This is blatant original reasearch that editor @Objective3000 has been pushing for months, without ever trying to correct their course of actions. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in our disclaimers that warn that your PC may be infected if you click on a link. Therefore, adding such a warning is not against NODISCLAIMERS. And please be civil in your responses. Following is a sampling of warnings about being infected by either downloading from, clicking on an ad served, or even being redirected by TPB without any action on your part: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the quotes I've put in green? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The articles you have linked refer to various different stories. Again, I ask very civilly, have you read them? Regarding that one instance in 2016:

Malvertisers place fraudulent ads with third-party ad networks, with the aim of having them distribute the ads to high-traffic sites.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/pirate-bay-visitors-infected-with-crypto-ransomware-via-bad-ads/

Malware in programs are a different story. The crypto script on homepage yet another different story.

What's the only thing that these stories have in common?

None of them grant for a disclaimer on an home page link, as Wikipedia policy clearly explains. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course I read them in their entirety, not just the small cherry-picked phrases you quoted comprising less than 1% of their text. You asked for sources. I provided ten (10) sources clearly warning that the site has been dangerous over a long period of time. This is NOT in any manner covered by the WP general disclaimer linked to in small letters at the very bottom of this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles from 2016 does not confirm your original research in 2024.

Anyway the policy is clear as to not have disclaimers of this kind. I've explained it enough.

I'll stop replying and just revert your edits since you have been tone deaf for months. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You are going to need to stop these attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)