Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Pirate Bay proxies

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was very strong consensus that the article ran afoul of WP:NOT. There were reasonable attempts to distinguish the applicability of the policy, but they were soundly rejected. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Pirate Bay proxies[edit]

List of The Pirate Bay proxies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List article that serves no purpose other than to provide external links to websites that facilitate copyright infringement. Was incorrectly declined for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11. The article is based almost entirely on questionable sources. Fails WP:LINKFARM, WP:ELNO, WP:LISTN, WP:SPAM, and The WMF Terms of Use. - MrX 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - MrX 21:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - MrX 21:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. - MrX 21:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - MrX 21:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on which section of those policies that is violated?CFCF 💌 📧 21:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – very clear pass of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Other violations have not been proven. CFCF 💌 📧 21:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no it doesn't, as the list goes against this paragraph in the first section of WP:NWEB: Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted. This list is exactly a repository of links with little to no description of their contents. —烏Γ (kaw), 21:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to single external links such as Primal Pictures (which maybe ought to be deleted). It does not apply here, there is description of contents as well as additional information about regional blocks. CFCF 💌 📧 22:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does it pass notability? --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By being mentioned sufficiently in reliable sources. They are obviously notable enough to have articles written specifically about them.
checkY

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations

. CFCF 💌 📧 22:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator is incorrect in asserting that the article was "incorrectly declined for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11". The CSD nomination was not appropriate, which I had explained earlier, as it did not meet the requirement of CSD#G11. The nom has provided a laundry list of links, but I too would like to know how the article fails to meet each of the guidelines. It's easy to list guidelines but the nom is claiming the article should be deleted, so he really needs to justify deletion, which a laundry list does not do. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The page does nothing more than to direct readers elsewhere. That's what makes it promotional, rather than informational. - MrX 22:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    tl;dr clarfication of each policy and guideline linked in my nomination statement
  1. From WP:LINKFARM: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."
  2. From WP:ELNO: Links to avoid: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
  3. From WP:SPAM - "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced."
  4. From WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by 'independent reliable sources"
  5. From *WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."
  6. From The WMF Terms of Use: "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law." - MrX 22:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply linking to a site is not being promotional, which is partly why CSD#G11 does not apply. As for your other comments:
  1. excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. - That's aimed at lists within articles, not at articles that are solely aimed at being a list.
  2. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. - This is aimed at the external links section, not at articles that are solely aimed at being a list.
  3. There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming - The links are provided within a single article aimed specifically at listing proxies for a website so they do not constitute spam. Nor is the article an advertisement for a site.
  4. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by 'independent reliable sources - There are numerous independent reliable sources in the article.
  5. Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam - Again, this is aimed more at the extrernal links section and again, simply linking to a site is not being promotional. The article is simply listing proxies for a site that is already the subject of an article and I don't see how any of the content can be considered promotional. It's far different form adding, say "MrX.com" to multiple articles where MrX.com is not relevant to the subject.
  6. Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law - As discussed elsewhere, TPB doesn't contain any infringing content so this is a non issue. The WP:ELN discussion mentioned an email from WMF legal that said there was no outright ban on linking to the site, so this copyright thing is a non-issue
I'm not saying that this article should not be deleted (or kept), I'm just saying that your justifcation for deletion is based on a lot of invalid arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:LINKFARM is an overarchng policy that describes what Wikipedia is NOT. Suggesting that it applies to a portion of an article, but not an article consisting almost entirely of external links is nonsensical.- MrX 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Our policies and guidelines are not intended to be interpreted so narrowly. We're not a bureaucracy.- MrX 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Pirate Bay proxies are not encyclopedic content. Full stop. Mass linking to pages with content not in accord with Wikipedia's purpose (being an encyclopedia) is a form of spam.- MrX 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The two sources for the list are of dubious reliability (TorrentFreak.com and nextinpact.com). Also, two minor source don't establish notability.- MrX 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Our policies and guidelines are not intended to be interpreted so narrowly. We're not a bureaucracy.- MrX 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Contributory copyright infringement. - MrX 23:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. It now links the French court order as well.CFCF 💌 📧 23:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. WMF-legal have stated that additions are up to editor discretion. See the discussion at WP:EL/N concerning the main article.CFCF 💌 📧 23:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Actually, WMF legal said that it's up to the community.- MrX 02:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per the list creator's consistent attempts to circumvent consensus, ignore policies and guidelines, and badger everyone who opposes him into providing justification that has already been provided many times. —烏Γ (kaw), 21:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Ad hominem attacks add no rationale for deletion. Neither do we count WP:VOTEs without rationale. CFCF 💌 📧 21:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the number of specific diffs in which you do these things is staggering, I will link to all of the relevant discussions in which these claims are founded, in chronological order of the discussion's start: Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 7#Short links, Talk:The Pirate Bay#RfC - 24 July 2015, Talk:The Pirate Bay#torrentfreak.com, Talk:The Pirate Bay#Link List of The Pirate Bay proxies. This is an expression of the frustration I and several other editors have experienced when trying to discuss this topic with you. Additionally, though you were not involved in it, the earliest of these discussions, WP:ELN#The Pirate Bay, provides more context to the genesis of this dispute. —烏Γ (kaw), 20:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 7 points in that policy document do you find this article to be in violation of?CFCF 💌 📧 21:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be better if I point at "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" on that page ? --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because neither is this article, it gives information on blocks and is fully sourced where the proxies are treated as notable in and of themselves-additionally so for being blocked in some countries.CFCF 💌 📧 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We had an RfC. CFCF's position did not prevail. He is now trying to sneak in links he failed to include in the original article. This is a blatant run-around of an RfC and Wikipedia guidelines. Further, how many of these links guide people to malware sites? TPB proxies are well-known for this. Is Wikipedia to get into the business of validating links to aide and abet intellectual property violations? Wikipedia has stated a respect for IP rights. Objective3000 (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC had absolutely nothing to do with the links presented in this article. The RfC was specifically about including thepiratebay.gd, thepiratebay.la, thepiratebay.mn and thepiratebay.vg in the infobox at The Pirate Bay. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please. You and he failed to get those links included in the article. So now, he created a new article with the same links, added many more, and linked to that list at the very top of the TPB article. And how many more times are you going to repeat those links? Words fail. Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the RFC had nothing to do with the the links in this article and So now, he created a new article with the same links is incorrect. Of the links that were the subject of the RfC, only thepiratebay.vg is included in this article. Please stick to the facts. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can repeat this nonsense ad infinitum. But, it's misleading. The links keep changing, as you well know. He is attempting to include, surreptitiously, the same types of links (and many more) that the RfC consensus would not allow. At some point, you have to stop wasting everyone's time. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That the RFC had nothing to do with the links being included in this article is not nonsense. That only one of the links listed is included is not nonsense. That he created a new article with the same links is incorrect and misleading is not nonsense. About the only valid thing you've said in your latest post is that they are the the same types of links. That's far less misleading. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. CFCF attempted to add links seven times in a massive edit-warring example. There was an RfC to keep these links, which did not prevail. As you know, the links keep changing due to the fact that government after government after government keeps killing the links to an illegal site. You and CFCF have spent months attempting to add these links to an encyclopedia. You have not prevailed. Now, a new trick is being used to include new links, including links that will infect PCs with malware, against consensus. Frankly, it is difficult to imagine a purpose that is not malevolent. Objective3000 (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please try reading what was written? The RfC was specifically about adding a limited list of links to the article's infobox. Only one of those links has been listed here so the claim that There was an RfC to keep these links is blatantly incorrect. To say it another way, 80 of the 81 links in this article were not the subject of the RfC. I really don't think I can say this any more simply. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your continuing claims that I don't read are boorish. The RfC was about adding multiple links. Your position did not prevail. As I predicted, you would ignore the RfC. Objective3000 (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the person who started the RfC so I am well aware of what I was asking when I opened the RfC. It was started because there disagreement as to which links should be listed and only 1 of the 81 links in this article was the subject of the RfC. You are well aware of this, so I don't understand why you are persisting in misleading readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you started the RfC, you presented a false dichotomy. It was corrected and the discussion was wide-ranging. The conclusion was no multiple links. It doesn't matter which links. If 5 aren't allowed, 81 certainly are allowed. Objective3000 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete needs to be restored. This article has a list of links some of which point to malware sites. Why would anyone be in favor of such? If, for some odd reason, people thinks this makes sense, it can be restored and we can harm random people. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD nom was rejected. If you have a problem with that, the correct process is to take it up with the admin who rejected it, or take the article to AfD. The latter option was chosen so that's where we are and should have been from the beginning. Restoring the speedy delete tag is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, so you feel this page is so important that we should just say screw the people that will have their PCs destroyed by malware? Is it really that important to aide and abet a criminal site? And please, do not again insist the site isn't illegal after the courts have said they are. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No U.S. court has yet ruled on the legality and there are as yet no decisive court actions against it in U.S.. Malware troubles are your own problem for picking vulnerable platforms and exercising unsafe computing practices. Wikipedia would have to contain no links at all...[1][2] I suggest OpenBSD or Qubes OS if information security is of concern. And, of course, there is the National Security Agency and ther Tailored Access Operations so maybe one should not be on the internets at all. -- dsprc [talk] 04:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTLINK. Wikipedia is not a directory, and not a repository of links to external websites. I also agree that this could potentially violate WMF's TOU, as pointed out by the nominating statement. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we are not writing the yellow pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:: If some entries are verifiably notable by third parties and sourced as such then they should be listed and article moved to List of notable The Pirate Bay proxies -- dsprc [talk] 04:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dsprc: - if some of the entries are verifiably notable, then they sh/could be mentioned in the article The Pirate Bay, in prose form. None of the items in the list will every rise to the level that they will be independently notable so that they will get an own article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list as current would not be unsuitable for inclusion within parent article as it is simply too lengthy and would not adhere to MOS:LISTS etc.. Therefor is prime candidate for its own stand alone list. Entries themselves do seem to be sourced to reliable third-parties. -- dsprc [talk] 06:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I was entertaining the idea to include it as prose, not as a list. The whole list as it stands now could collapse into about 3 full sentences ... "TPB used numerous proxies, including A, B, C, D ..., which all have been blocked by .... <ref>. Only .. and .. have not been taken offline ...<ref> ....". --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is unencylopedic in accordance with a range of the policies mentioned above. Anyone who wants a list of Pirate Bay proxies can type "pirate bay proxy" into a search engine. There is no need for a Wikipedia article to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that CFCF has started verifying which proxies are accessible using WP:OR, I believe Wikipedia is now aiding and abetting copyright. This page should be deleted now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 13:06, September 17, 2015 (UTC)
Entirely incorrect, the colors specifically refer to blocks in the country. It is all properly referenced as per WP:V & WP:RS. CFCF 💌 📧 20:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainly per everyone above, especially KarasuGamma (talk · contribs). On top of that this could potential make the WMF liable for hosting a page on ways to circumvent a site that is constantly being blocked by the governments of many countries. If people want to pirate stuff, they should find this stuff themselves.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:CENSOR. It doesn't matter than they can get it somewhere else, we don't remove it for that reason. The rationale you specifically refer to is an ad hominem attack and does not carry any weight. CFCF 💌 📧 20:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this to say I like or don't like it, but I'm thinking what could happen if it stays. I noticed this AfD because someone is contacting WMF legal to get their input on this. The foundation could get in trouble for having this page. To me it looks like a web directory, and Wikipedia is not a web directory. I fail to see how there is any notability in these proxies. I know the pirate bay itself is notable, so if you want these links, I suggest merging them into the main article, and condensing it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is my observation they've a bone to pick with other contributors (and this topic area in general) and have been lobbying for ways to have them banned from editing. This is largely an overflow of that outta control flamewar. As for Foundation getting into trouble, not very likely as it is largely a list of blocked domains already censored by ISP and is public information as demonstrated by cited sources. Other than that, we have information on Falun Gong which will get you and your family disappeared, tortured, killed or worse in China. Wikimedia has hosted the cover of Virgin Killer album for years and censored in UK on child pornography grounds for it. We would be prevented from sourcing WikiLeaks or other news organizations that publish government documents as it is contributing to the access of top secret materials whose possession is deemed illegal by the State. We could not link to the Internet Archive because they carry out all kinds of digital preservation initiatives without permission of copyright holders. Google Books and Newspapers, which we link to on every single AfD are also blatant copyright infringement and suits are still ongoing. It is illegal or unlawful in some European states to even use quotations. Slippery slope. -- dsprc [talk] 22:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop inserting your political opinions. Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful flame war. Cool it or I'm going to seek a mutual interaction ban for you two. - MrX 21:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He tried adding to the main site and failed. That's why he created this fork. Objective3000 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Patently false, please do not resort to ad hominem. CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Far from it. You spent months edit-warring, putting multiple links in the article over and over and over in violation of WP:ELBURDEN. Now you are trying to circumvent all the discussions on the subject by putting links here and adding a link to this article at the very top of the TPB article. Objective3000 (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again false, there was an RfC on that page concerning the proper link(s) to use in the infobox when the main page had multiple official links. If by participating in discussion and restoring a smaller number of edits going against long-standing consensus to include a link (they removed all of them) you call edit-warring – I would suggest you study the policy documents. CFCF 💌 📧 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really should stop lecturing editors. You've made three errors on three pages in the last hour attempting to do so. Believe what you want. But, my statement was what I saw and meant as an explanation to another editor as to why his suggestion would not apply. It was not an ad hominem. It was not a flame. Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for links to illegal websites. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 17:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Corrected location. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't say about the TOU, but the WP:NOTDIRECTORY horse is pretty much beaten into near mush. Plus IMO the sources used may demonstrate notability for The Pirate Bay, sure, but are at best mere passing mentions for the domains. "Giving information on the blocks" (per CFCF above) is sufficiently done at The Pirate Bay#Domain blocking by countries, and beyon that is WP:IINFO territory. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply – these are all notable for being blocked or otherwise important. None of the 7 points listed in that guideline apply:
  • ☒NLists or repositories of loosely associated topics
  • ☒NGenealogical entries
  • ☒NThe White or Yellow Pages
  • ☒NDirectories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business
  • ☒NSales catalogues
  • ☒NNon-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
  • ☒NSimple listings without context information
Repeating an inapplicable guideline over and over will not "beat it to mush". The sourced independently demonstrate notability for proxies, this article lists them according to the reliable sources.CFCF 💌 📧 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • checkYDirectories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a  resource for conducting business 
Wikipedia is not a resource for helping people locate pirated software and generating clicks for TPB.- MrX 14:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a very dubious rationale. So because the list can potentially be used in the manner it therefor classifies as a directory. That isn't the way Wikipedia operates. CFCF 💌 📧 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is buying what you're selling here dude... It is so blatantly a violation of these things you claim it isn't violating that it's becoming ridiculous. Just... Let it go man. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 14:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Setting the NOTDIRECTORY issue aside... I don't think this list passes WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists. NSAL repeatedly calls for notability to be based on the group or set... not the individual components of the list. So... the key question is whether the topic of the list ("proxy servers for The Pirate Bay") has been discussed (in reasonable depth) as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I think the answer to that is "no". What I see is a string of sources that each mention individual proxies (and often not in depth)... but no sources that discuss "proxies of The Pirate Bay" as a unique phenomenon or concept... no sources that discuss them as "group or set". Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that your argument strengthens the rationale of keeping the list. TPB proxies are extensively discussed by reliable sources, not in the very least by those that are linked in the article. CFCF 💌 📧 15:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources in the article, I didn't find what I am talking about. However, I am always willing to to be proved wrong... so, could you be more specific... which of the sources cited in the article do you think discuss TPB proxies (as a group or set) in reasonable detail?... post them here, so we can examine and discuss them further. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction to the article discusses the type of site quite extensively - so those citations would be a good start: [1], but there are numerous references out there that aren't in the article: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], [12] etc. CFCF 💌 📧 16:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting quote in the BBC article you cited: "UK internet service providers have begun blocking access to websites that provide a list of Pirate Bay alternatives, as part of the battle against online piracy." In other words, the UK is now blocking sites that do exactly what you are doing in this article. Will the UK block Wikipedia if we continue aiding and abetting copyright? The article would suggest so. Why would an encyclopedia do this? I am more and more convinced this should be a speedy delete. Objective3000 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, by providing a list, we actually make it easier for the service providers to block such proxies ... since we give them a handy list of which websites they should block. And... if all the websites on our list are blocked, the article would quickly become a List of blocked TPB proxies (which, paradoxically, might actually be a more Notable topic than a list of unblocked ones). Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to proxies, the service providers are blocking proxy list sites, like this article. That's what the quote says. Objective3000 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(←) As stated, this list is comprised of notable sites already censored by various governments and corporations. Wikipedia is also already blocked by numerous repressive governments across the globe that wish to restrict the free flow of information. U.K. have blocked us over Virgin Killer before. We have even blocked ourselves(!) [3] over unlawful censorship without judicial process. Wikimedia is a U.S. based organization not bound by oppressive controls U.K. exacts over its media ( where you've to be licensed to watch television). Linking to material is not illegal or unlawful in the U.S.[4] and is legal constitutionally protected speech. At least one member of WMF Board supports such free expression[5][6] -- dsprc [talk] 07:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the U.K. as a repressive government is not likely to convince anyone. Please stop inserting your political beliefs. WP:NOTSOAPBOX Objective3000 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one who put forward the notion that it is illegal (when it isn't) and would get the entire site censored. Also not the one to bring Britannia into this. Not opinions, but facts. No freedom of speech or press in U.K.; can be imprisoned there just for reading something the State doesn't like, or a simple racist tweet. Is a reason WMF incorporated in U.S. and not Britain. -- dsprc [talk] 06:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop inserting your political beliefs. WP:NOTSOAPBOX Objective3000 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite Note that that policy is inapplicable to the article, none of the points there are violated. CFCF 💌 📧 22:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there's strong consensus that NOTDIRECTORY applies. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31832137
  2. ^ http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/11/pirate-bay-proxy-blocks/ Engaget
  3. ^ http://www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com/news/pirate-bay-proxy-sites-blocked-in-uk-4293
  4. ^ http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/12/bpi-gets-serious-over-pirate-party-bay-proxy-maybe-sending-a-letter/
  5. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/12/pirate-bay-birthday-internet-freedom
  6. ^ http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/dutch-pirate-bay-court-decision-impact-proxy-sites/
  7. ^ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/unblocked-proxy-piracy-site-more-popular-spotify-skype-uk-1513810
  8. ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e1c81f7c-81b3-11e2-ae78-00144feabdc0.html
  9. ^ http://www.idigitaltimes.com/isohunts-old-pirate-bay-new-proxy-torrent-search-site-unofficially-brings-popular-400662
  10. ^ http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/dutch-court-shuts-down-wordpress-based-pirate-bay-proxy-1088423
  11. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31832137
  12. ^ http://en.yibada.com/articles/45784/20150715/new-proxy-websites-added-to-uk-piracy-blockade-list-featuring-the-pirate-bay.htm
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Pirate_Bay_proxies&oldid=1068989759"