Talk:Silk Road (marketplace)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Silk Road" versus "The Silk Road"

I'm pretty sure that it's called just "Silk Road" and not "The Silk Road". Not sure how to change the title of the article though... KLP (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the little links, 'move page'. I did it for you. --Gwern (contribs) 16:03 13 June 2011 (GMT)

Tor links

Rather than parenthetically reminding readers that they must use Tor to access Tor hidden services (.onion sites), does some kind of Tor box exist to more neatly accomplish this task? I imagine that it would look similar to the example I've included, but would say something to the effect of "This article features external links to Tor hidden services. Visitors cannot follow these links without using Tor". KLP (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I managed to put together a preliminary template. Not sure where to go from here. Halp? KLP (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So as not to get too off-topic, I've decided to continue this effort to my user page. Feel free to help! KLP (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a gang of folks that get .onion addresses removed from Wikipedia. Once they find this article, they'll kill it.

94.222.191.118 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. Do they occupy some kind of WikiProject or just a broad idea, like the "deletionists"? KLP (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're really curious, go to the Tor talk page archives & article history and note the little edit wars. Thankfully, our onion links do not link to child porn in any sense, so if they dare damage this article, they can simply be reverted out of hand. --Gwern (contribs) 20:46 17 June 2011 (GMT)

Really? Guess I have to add this to my watchlist then. Imperi (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete SR page

It is important to understand the nature of this once tight community. Exposure like this is not necessary, and would be greatly appreciate by everyone using the site if it was deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.151.207 (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case, your attitude only makes it worse. Are we trying to achieve irony⸮ KLP (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's page should be deleted in it's entirety. --Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I take it that you were agreeing with 68.82.151.207, so I reformatted your comment accordingly. Anyway, we've already settled the issue and the result, as indicated at the top of this page, was to keep the article. KLP (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This links only work with TOR: Weapon Shop (guest shop of Silk Road called "The Armory": ayjkg6ombrsahbx2.onion/index.php/silkroad/register Silk Road Wiki: dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Hidden Wiki: kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page Black Market Reloaded: 5onwnspjvuk7cwvk.onion/ Freedom Host: xqz3u5drneuzhaeo.onion/ The Farmers Market: vynox6ys2jjswhxq.onion/ Tor Link List: dppmfxaacucguzpc.onion/ Silk Road Forums: vynox6ys2jjswhxq.onion/

What? And please sign your posts. KLP (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Protection

We ought to get this article protected. I find all this vandalism, especially with regard to the URLs, very tiresome. Thoughts? KLP (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a little annoying, yes, especially the phishing .onion links, but I don't think it's really heavy enough to justify semi-protection. --Gwern (contribs) 20:14 31 October 2011 (GMT)

"The die have been cast and now we will see how they land"

Nice to see the "sic" there. The turn of phrase is obviously confused, one does not cast a die as in a singular of dice as in throwing by that meaning, but rather as in casting (putting forth) a molding on a manufacturing die. Casting a mold, casting a die, not throwing dice. 66.243.212.138 (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You had me there for a second, but the phrase refers to a game of chance wherein one might use one or more die. See Alea iacta est. KLP (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the sic is for the fact that it should say the dice have been cast 82.20.32.138 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

...Or "the die has been cast". Also, since die is singular, the writer should have used the singular pronoun it. In other words, the writer could have made a correct sentence by either using the word dice, as you suggested, as a plural subject or by making the remainder of the sentence properly refer to the singular subject die. KLP (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Has any notable source mentioned whether it was a pun or not? --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Where's the pun? Hopefully me asking does not betray a lack of sophistication. KLP (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The pun about uncertain result and a busyness model being created (like in a roll of dice, we don't know whether copies will be casted from the mold they made) --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's deep, man. But, I have yet to encounter a source that has explored the potential for such word play. KLP (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dead links

There is a host of dead links to Silk Road, and I was unable to recover them using the Wayback Machine. They are probably gone for good, so a lot of the associated quotes should probably be removed. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Er.... Are you familiar with the concept of 'Tor'? Why would you expect them to ever be in the Wayback Machine? --Gwern (contribs) 03:09 20 September 2012 (GMT)

I wasn't, but now I know a little more. It seems a bit strange to using citations that require an installation of Tor; I searched Wikipedia for similar links and found none, not even in the article .onion. If equivalent sources can be found outside of Tor, that would be better. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Very few Tor sites are notable enough to merit a Wikipedia entry, so their absence is not too surprising. It might be a good idea to provide mirror links using tor2web.org though if one absolutely had to. (I see it as little different from linking to paywalled academic sites: some people can get in, most can't. If the material is not elsewhere, oh well.) --Gwern (contribs) 01:27 30 September 2012 (GMT)

If we are talking about sources, common practice of WP:finding reliable sources is the way to go. That is, it doesnt matter if the source is published on a newspaper, a book, a radio transmission, TV, website behind or not behind a paywall, tor, Minitel, CompuServe, usenet, e-books, or any other place where information is published. If the sources is reliable and useable in the context of the article, we can include it. The only exception is to make it as easy as possible for the reader to access the source, thus sources that are easy accessible should be favorable to those that are not. As for tor2web, if you use it, do include the original link in the source in case that the proxy goes down. Belorn (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

why was this moved without discussion, per WP:Moving a page, WP:Article Names, WP:NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.209.52 (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Black Market Redirect

This was done without any disucssion on the talk page I think that "marketplace" is a better word to use for the market. It's only a "black market" in places where it operates illegally, since there is no defined world law on the Internet, I don't think a business that operates 100% on the internet can be considered a "black market"... It is simply a marketplace, on the internet. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the initial version was already "marketplace", I went ahead and reverted it. Before making further changes to the title, let's discuss it here. ☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 03:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2012

Administrator Panyd removed the URL to the site for no reason at all. The article should be reverted to the previous version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road_%28marketplace%29&oldid=525143734 (14:15, 27 November 2012‎) There is no sense in deleting site URLs and calling them "phishing links" just because said site is inaccessible for a few hours. http: //silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/ is the correct URL and has been for many months, it's easily verifiable by googling for a couple of minutes. 80.217.16.8 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Already done If you examine the article right now you'll see that someone reinserted the link. I'm not sure the link is appropriate, but, for now it's done. Begoon ^talk 04:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012

Please change the sales volume estimate from $22 million/year to $15 million/year. The research paper on which the Forbes article (ref [6]) was based was recently updated. See:

Christin, Nicolas. Traveling the Silk Road: A measurement analysis of a large anonymous online marketplace. Carnegie Mellon University CyLab Technical report 12-018. July 2012 (revised: November 2012.) Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7139 216.149.208.5 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Done - with this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 15:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Jewelry should be spelt jewellery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.5.144 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

I have started a thread on ANI regarding the difficulty of maintaining the .onion link to SR. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The link

i think we should remove the link or switch it with the fake one (silkroadmarket.org). i dont think wikipedia should make it easy like that for people to find a place where they can break the law. the streisand effect isnt an issue unless someone makes a big fuzz about this but why would they? im not proposing deleting this article and merely changing the url shouldnt attract too much attention. lets not forget that there is no real reason the url should be included in the first place, it doesn't enhance the quality of the article and .onion urls dont link to websites, they link to tor hidden services so the fact that its custom to include links to websites doesn't really apply either, in fact, that only makes it more logical to have the .org site here instead since this one IS an actual website. --91.53.214.223 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it enhances the quality of the article. How could not linking to the website, in the article about the website, improve the article or even not matter? --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 2 December 2011 (GMT)

Not including the real link presents a danger to the public. If we don't keep the proper one here, people will more likely follow malicious links that they find elsewhere. That said, just because people might follow the link if we present it in the article doesn't mean that they will go on to break the law. Even if they do, the violation will not have occurred on Wikipedia's servers, so it's not even an issue. Furthermore, information helps people do whatever they want, illegal or not. Conceivably, this article might even help law enforcement. By your logic, flawed as it is, the link must stay. KLP (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm too paranoid to keep the link on my pc, yet there is always a true and legit one on Wikipedia. Keep it. 85.95.155.8 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am shocked to see wikipedians have censored this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.183.8 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you would even consider putting information that you yourself acknowledge is "fake" into a Wikipedia article, you need to get off Wikipedia immediately and leave it to the adults. 24.38.200.234 (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The link seems to have been removed without any kind of discussion here, which is kind of unfair considering the fact that the discussion of link removal never came to a decision. Can we put the link back on? Craptree (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The link was removed based on a discussion at an administrator's noticeboard - see the notification at the bottom of this page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Screw the admin. The discussion and decision linked to basically amounts to "Wah, wah, drugs are bad, so let's ignore our usual rules and remove the link to protect the children and kittens". They also make the example of not linking to copyright violating sites such as The Pirate Bay - despite the fact that TPB's url actually is on TPB's article. It's a decision that's entirely inconsistent with not just rules but also common editing practice, and it's a very moralising and POV decision for an encyclopaedia that has "NPOV" as one of its main rules. So, to re-iterate, screw the admin.

Having a link to Silk Road is consistent with wikipedia policy on linking (see Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL#Official_links and Wikipedia:ELNEVER#Restrictions_on_linking). It also enhances the quality and relevance of the article. The reason the link has been removed appears to be some editors having political objections to drug use. The link should therefore be added back. Woood (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

213.104.79.110 (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there some means of prompting a real discussion about the link? I'd like to point out that using the Silk Road marketplace in not inherently illegal in the US or the EU, but using it to buy drugs is. The use of the link was well within the rules, since it was not spam and was the primary link to the website about which the article is. The noticeboard explicitly mentions ignoring the rules. 146.115.137.225 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually not necessary to install TOR in order to access this site. Has anyone thought to incorporate a regular HTTP link through the well known tor2web proxy accessible with any web browser? https: //silkroadvb5piz3r.tor2web.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.62.170.69 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why has the link not been added back yet? 86.7.89.84 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy clearly states neutrality. It's not wikipedia's responsibility or policy to worry about what we're linking to. No censorship, I strongly believe the link should come back. If I find it, I will edit it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.101.249 (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The correct link is silk roadvb5piz3r.onion/ (without the space between 'silk' and 'road'). However, the link has been blacklisted as a spam/phishing website, so it refuses to accept your edit with the link in it (hence the space in the URL). The actual URL does not change. You can see the blacklist discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Silk_Road_.28marketplace.29. It is my hope that the link can be whitelisted, but as of yet, no one has posted a proposal on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed_additions_to_Whitelist_.28web_pages_to_unblock.29. If you feel like taking the effort, please do so. It's pretty silly that admins that are clearly ignorant when it comes to .onion sites are determining whether they can be listed or not. Sid (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, note the new RFC discussion under "I have restored the link" on this talk page. Check there from now on, in regards to the link discussion. Sid (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

EL list way too long

Most if not all of the linked sites are news articles or reportages, which are better served as inline sources for the article rather than external links (see WP:EL). The exception is regarding sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources, as those may be considered. To this, I think maybe Using Silk Road could be kept and the rest removed. Belorn (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reorder the listing of products in the 'Products' Section

We need to rework the language contained in the 'Products' section of this article. A quote from the article follows: "Most sellers on the site are based in the United Kingdom and the United States, and offer products such as heroin, LSD, and cannabis."

This gives the impression that the site deals largely with heroin, when it in fact deals mostly and by large with Cannabis.

Note bolded section. At least 80% of the products sold on this site are weed. A brief search on the site would verify that the majority of the products being sold are Cannabis. A quick search on the site reveals that of the drugs currently up for sale, search results return:

• Drugs 3,011
• Cannabis 1,120
• Dissociatives 26
• Ecstasy 129
• Opioids 256
• Other 112
• Precursors 3
• Prescription 616
• Psychedelics 206
• Stimulants 324

I think we should reorder this sentence, or at least draw attention to the fact, in this article. Leading with heroine gives the wrong impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JollyGreenJesus (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the link

In accordance with WP:CENSOR, WP:ELOFFICIAL. There is no reason not to link to the **website we are discussing**. If you disagree, we can ask ArbCom. Quantum Burrito (talk) 08:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that was a bit over the top, I apologise. I was in a rush when I wrote that, of course going straight to ArbCom would be inappropriate. But, if you do not think the link belongs on the page, please discuss with me (and other interested editors) here instead of removing it again. Hopefully we can reach consensus on this issue by following the proper procedure. Quantum Burrito (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration is for issues with user conduct. I don't think anyone has violated community standards here. There was a consensus at ANI that this article should not have the link. It is not even possible to add it as a url, since it was added to the SBL. You are gaming that system by reinserting it. I am not aware of any other article in which a URL is included without linking to it. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not "gaming the system". I had no intention of bypassing the blacklist (I had no idea it was included), I just forgot the http. However, I do not see how a consensus at ANI is anything other than an abuse of sysop power. Which is a violation of community standards. Editorial issues regarding the page (which the issue of inclusion of the link is) are supposed to be decided by consensus of editors on a talk page, not decided by administrative fiat. You definitely do have authority to blacklist phishing sites, but blacklisting the URL of a site considered notable enough to have its own page, especially without seeking input from the editors on that page, is outside of the proper scope of a sysop's authority. It is an editorial issue, and it should be decided here.

So here is my argument: it is the real, multiply cited URL of the site that the article is about. There is no precedent for banning the inclusion of publicly available information from Wikipedia. In fact, it directly contradicts several of our principles. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia should link to official sources, including official web pages. I say that the un-linked and correct URL should stay, as a valid and useful contribution to the article, until such time as the genuine silk road URL can be white-listed from the blanket ban. We link to the pirate bay, the BNP, and other objectionable websites. This should be no different. Quantum Burrito (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there has been a bit of a miscommunication here. Please don't assume that I agree with all the comments in that ANI thread. I honestly do not care at all whether we have a link to Silk Road. I am engaged here in my capacity as an administrator, not as an editor. That is why the discussion was held at ANI--insertion of phishing links into our articles is an administrative problem. Here is what concerns me: Right now, what we have is a number of our readers relying on the link in our infobox in order to get to the site. Occasionally a sockmaster bypasses autoconfirmed and inserts a link to a phishing page. Even though the link usually only stays up for a few hours, that is enough for people to be victimized. I am sure we both find this situation to be unacceptable.

Assuming you agree that the status quo must be abandoned, there are two different ways forward:

1. Whitelist the SR link and blacklist variants of it, so that it is impossible for the sockpuppets to change it.

• I have now come to believe that I was mistaken when I wrote at ANI that the SBL could not be used to to counter the insertion of phishing links. It is not a perfect solution, but it may be enough.

2. Remove the link.

• This option is particularly effective because once people stop relying on the article to get to the site, the phisher has no incentive to reinsert the link.

Here is what I propose: We remove the link for now because of the problematic nature of the current situation. I will then file an RfC on this page and hopefully a consensus will emerge as to which one of these options is best from an editorial perspective. How does that sound? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. I would like to note that removing the valid link will not stop people from inserting phishing links. But I shall not obstruct you in proceeding as you have asked. I do not know the exact procedure for an RfC, but if you could please link to it on this talk page when it is created, I would appreciate it. Thank you for being reasonable. Quantum Burrito (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC

I have been following this issue since the phishing attacks started, I am also the person who filed this RfC and the original ANI thread. Both of these were aimed at removing the link because of the difficulty posed by maintaining it. This discussion has prompted some changes, such as the addition of .onion URLs to the SBL, which give us some new technical options for dealing with the phishing. Since we are no longer faced with the necessity of removing the link, we turn to evaluating the desirability of doing so.

An arithmetical evaluation of the comments on this page does not reveal a consensus in one particular direction or the other. However, it seems to me that the onus is on the "oppose" side of the debate to show why we should deviate from our standard practice of linking to a website when it is the subject of the article in question. Indeed, the policy primarily cited by those who oppose inclusion is ELNO, which explicitly excludes official links. The other common argument, regarding the legality of the content, has been repudiated by the WMF.

For the reasons cited above, I will be adding the Silk Road link to the Spam whitelist, reinserting it into the article, and restoring it in the page history in places where revision deletion has been used by other administrators. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Should the article contain link to the Silk Road website? Please see the above discussion for some context. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As the most obnoxiously insistent editor of this page, I'd like to make a few points:

• Simply removing the link will not stop people inserting a fake link.
• Removing the link will not stop people who search the internet for "silk road" checking its Wikipedia page for a URL.
• Including a website's URL is in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and an almost unquestioned practice until now. No concerns were raised by linking to TBP, the BNP, etc, as far as I can see this is entirely about the risk of phishing.
• There is no reason why the official, multiply cited URL cannot be whitelisted from any phishing site blacklist.
• And finally, in my opinion, making sure the true and accurate Silk Road URL remains on this page is the best and most effective way of stopping phishing attacks against its users. Quantum Burrito (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but seeing that it is a black market site, I think the link shouldn't be on the page, otherwise s users might think that Wikipedia is supporting black markets. Numbermaniac - T- C 01:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This whole discussion sounds nuts to me. That we should have an article on the Silk Road site is in every way reasonable, encyclopaedic, and a service to the user. That we also should be required, or should permit, a link to the URL is a totally different question and strikes me as having no encyclopaedic function whatsoever. It might not be our explicit duty to block the inclusion of any such link, but it certainly is no part of our function to include it, which would look to me suspiciously like spamming or advertising. Furthermore, either to omit the URL or to enforce its omission would not in any way resemble censorship, because anyone too pig-ignorant to go and look it up on Google if he wants to probably also is too ignorant to find the article on Wikipedia. I vote for omitting the URL in any reasonable form until such time as any opposing editor can supply sound reason for its inclusion as an encyclopaedic item. If there is going to be a dust-up about it, such as disruptive editing or edit warring, then start looking at the normal options for quality assurance, such as locking and exclusion. We have enough people throwing hissy-fits about pictures explicitly displaying the genitals and shameless sexual activity of animals; we don't need to invite being tarred with less benign brushes as well. There is no reason to get shrill about the assessment of how realistic it is to try to omit the entry; if a lot of people add it to their watch lists and desultorily revert every addition, that probably will suffice in practice; if its persistence becomes worthy of serious attention, maybe you can request a bot to perform the function. JonRichfield (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Before pulling in their horns again, certain persons frequently voluble in this forum briefly declared themselves unable to see how publishing the URL could be spamming or advertising, but the question is not what they fail to see. The question is how they are to make the rest of us see it their way. As long as we remain unable to overcome our logical and ethical blindness, we need their help rather than criticism, and what I have seen on this page so far won't cut it. Till further enlightenment ensues, I still see it as spamming and advertising -- and unnotable and unencyclopaedic to boot. JonRichfield (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Would the link fall under WP:ELNO #3 as content illegal in Florida? The only problem being, I guess, that that section is disregarded for external links. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure - I came across [1] and wonder: if there are reliable sources on the phishing attacks, it's probably more important to cover them than the link itself. I don't really have an opinion on whether to include the link, because of the possible policy issue Samwalton9 raised. EllenCT (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the link - Linking to the official site of an article is common, useful and encyclopaedic in that it provide contextual source for the article. A reader who goes to this article might want study and research the subject further, getting their own understanding of the subject, and the link provide a mechanism for this. Any argument against the encyclopaedic value would first have to claim that a reader visiting the official site would have no more understanding of the subject than after just reading the article. As an response to comments above, linking to the official site in the article about the site is not spamming or advertising. Such claim invalids that definition of WP:SPAMLINK and the policy within, but also imply that we should not link to official articles if the article is about politics, campaigns, products, or anything else that would be defined as promotional if linked. A link can not be advertising in nature, only the way a link is used can be promotional or spamming. The more valid arguments for omitting the links is IAR (as one person commented in the ANI), or legal/publicity side if WMF takes a stand on the issue. For legal issues, WMF has the only vote and as such, editors that raise this point should ask them for a comment on the issue. Belorn (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the link - I find there's really no question here. The reason the link was taken from the page in the first place was because it was replaced, more than once, with links to phishing websites (as it's hard to tell at first glance with an .onion link). Adding the link to the whitelist is the best solution. Quantum Burrito's reasoning is sound. Samwalton9, your concern appears to be unnecessary, looking at the clause at the beginning of that particular piece of policy, which states Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject -- which is exactly what we're talking about here. I see no reason to avoid retaining the URL in the article once it has been whitelisted. Keep the link. Sid (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep linkAs per Sid's argument -- No one arguing against the link for spam/advertising reasons has ever answered this clear and I think devastating argument. This is not a close debate at all.PStrait (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep link - As per HexenX and Belorn. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose - Per history, site is blacklisted and its revdeled. Consensus was against, this should not override previous judgement about the link. See relevant ANI page.[2] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The phishing issue aside: if the Foundation declines to make any decision and consent by silence, the decision whether or not to keep the link still has to be made by editors. Neither ToS clause seems relevant to me, and there is compelling encyclopedic reason to have the link. --Gwern (contribs) 23:45 12 April 2013 (GMT)
• This issue was already discussed here [3] where it seems a consensus believes that such a link was against policy, whether the link is valid or not. There isn't an encyclopedic value that overrides good judgement to not publish. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously encyclopedic to link to a website where the website is the entirety of the subject matter. As for your ANI link - so what? No one there explained what policy it was against or why. Chihuahua makes up a new NOT (not a recreational drug site? No shit sherlock, what does that have to do with linking?) and his real opinion is clearly given by his description as 'advertising' (so what?). Canens admits there's no reason when he calls for the removal to be done under IAR. Nyttend has no idea what he's talking about and later on proposes to amend policy specifically to ban it (so, it's against policy? then why do we need to amend policy to ban it...?). DGG and Bushranger make a completely false equivalency (this is not a copyright violation site, so contributory copyright is irrelevant). Wehwalt makes the astonishing argument that since the address is easy to get, we ought to not include it (well! Time to delete all our pages on popular topics like Barack Obama or Pokemon, since you know, it's so easy to get information about them online). WONG just bans the addresses, no policy justification there! The anonymous IP makes the obvious points that no one has actually come up with a reasonable policy justification - and the only responses are to immediately make the phishing excuse (make up your minds, should the link not be there because phishing is too heavy, or should it not be there because it's against policy? Which is it?) and Wilkins makes a technical procedural point (super job there). And then the ANI post is archived and apparently now we have people like you going around claiming this confirms that the SR homepage is now against policy.

What consensus? There is no consensus there. --Gwern (contribs) 00:32 13 April 2013 (GMT)

You might want to visit the ANI discussion on it. [4]. I think you will have a difficult time convincing everyone that the article is "lesser" without that link. The current consensus is that it can't be included, via that other discussion. This is an issue that is larger than a single article, it covers our terms of use and legal liability, just as we don't provide links to known copyright infringement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

::::: Gwern, your argument here is to include a black market is that it is the official website for an illicit drug market? Seriously? So by that same token you'd link to other illicit material if it has an official website? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris, way to ignore almost everything I wrote. 'other illicit material'? We are discussing Silk Road, not all the other hypotheticals you might like to discuss. --Gwern (contribs) 02:45 13 April 2013 (GMT)

Keep in mind, this isn't about morality, I'm not here to tell anyone what drugs to take or not take, it is an issue of liability for linking to obviously illegal material and responsibility for publishing links that are very difficult to verify because they are accessible by TOR only (something most people don't use) and they are ripe for phishing. Basically, we do a disservice to the reader by including links to websites that are dangerous, illegal or otherwise have more risk than benefit by the linking. There is no "right" to having a primary link in an article, and Wiki-wide policy overrides editorial consensus established on a single article's talk page. This is why I didn't bother "Opposing", as I don't think the vote count is going to matter here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not an issue of liability. I already pointed this out: this is not contributory copyright infringement, which is what was falsely claimed to be relevant in your linked ANI thread which I have debunked. And the 'TOR is hard to verify' is silly; anyone can install Tor for free following the easy official guide if they want, and I don't see anyone arguing that Wikipedia ban links to sites like Elsevier or JSTOR because the papers are behind a paywall and are 'very difficult to verify' without paying $50.

How are we doing readers a disservice? Those who are not interested will not use the link; those who are interested may use the link, and its removal is a 'disservice' to them. You have not established the link is 'dangerous', you have not established that it is 'illegal', you have not established that there is any 'more risk than benefit by the linking', and you have no established that there is any 'Wiki-wide policy' which 'overrides' the subject-area editors. --Gwern (contribs) 02:45 13 April 2013 (GMT)

As for WP:V, that doesn't apply here. The concern isn't about editorial accuracy as much as determining what is and isn't vandalism (phishing). As for the current consensus, I didn't establish anything, others did at an administrative board, and I didn't participate in that discussion. My objective is enforcing the consensus of that discussion until a proper discussion overturns it. I've tried my best to explain what they concluded, but it wasn't "my" decision to start with. Regardless, I've made it clear that myself and other admin have every intention of upholding the previous consensus until a new one forms, and hopefully I won't have to block people in the process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, am I understanding you correctly that you are going to ignore every single one of my points, repeat everything you've said before, and not even try to defend your claims as you impose what you perceive as a consensus (of a handful of uninvolved people who can't agree on the grounds for a ban, implicitly agree that the link is not banned because policy needs to be amended to ban it, and cannot justify themselves to an anonymous editor) over the teeth of any opposition by actual editors? Wow. I at least applaud your willingness to own your behavior as mindless "just following orders". --Gwern (contribs) 03:00 13 April 2013 (GMT)

While I'm at it, I'll note my amusement at Dennis's apparent retaliation.

Never mind that my page helped Christin discover a major error in his 2012 published paper linked above, never mind that it's only partially even construable as a 'how to', never mind that WP:EL does not even ban 'how tos' in the first place, never mind that WP:EL specifically says that non-RSs should be considered for linking in external links, never mind that part of the page is an RS published in "A Global Village" - he will take this opportunity. --Gwern (contribs) 03:35 13 April 2013 (GMT)

Believe it or not, I didn't make any connection between you and that link until now. I removed it only because it was inappropriate, not for retaliation, and I don't expect to modify again as my role here isn't as "editor". Actually, I didn't realize you had a conflict of interest until now, and that said, I will say what I tell every editor with a COI, that you should probably limit your edits to the talk page. While it isn't against policy, it is a recipe for trouble. And yes, I'm quite involved with COI editing and policy and have been for a long time, so it isn't personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

And you ignore everything else I say, as before, and I see you chose to repeat your claims on ANI rather than reply to me here or even mention there that, you know, someone disagrees that the link fails EL and RS (what, both of them? it must be a really bad link then!) --Gwern (contribs) 19:31 13 April 2013 (GMT)

• Oppose link per Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and previous ANI decision. Also propose revisiting Nyttend's ANI proposal to make links to phishing/malware/drugselling/ websites part of WP:ELNEVER, along with bombmaking and paedophile websites. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note - there's no reason that the article cannot mention malware and phishing in the text (currently it doesn't), we could lower the source benchmark a little, provided there's some source. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:EL does not apply to "a link to an official page of the article's subject" such as the one being discussed here, and the ANI decision does not appear to be a decision at all, it appears that no consensus was reached. Samwalton9 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, I've RevDel'ed all edits with the *onion address. I hate to be so blunt, but anyone unilaterally adding it back is likely to get blocked unless there is first a clear consensus outside of this talk page and in a public forum that would override the previous decision at ANI. As it stands now, I read it as a consensus there that the address should not be included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose link Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a mandate to record notable topics, but no mandate to allow use of this site to assist external sites. If anyone is interested, they are sure to find lots of info at Google, so the only justification for including a free link here is that other pages have one. There is no point debating whether WP:EL does or does not permit the link because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where outcomes are decided by the precise wording of a rule. What counts is whether there would be any encyclopedic benefit from this link, and the answer is no. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We have no mandate to do our best to hide contact information either. What appears in Google is irrelevant to us, it should either be in the article or not. And yes, debating EL is appropriate because people are busily claiming that EL forbids it and EL justifies its removal, when actually EL encourages it and does not justify its removal. (And policies are irrelevant? Wow, I'll remember that line next time I visit AfD. We have policies like EL for a reason, because they're supposed to be applied!) ~~`

• Oppose link: Link serves no conceivable encyclopedic purpose. Therefore simply doesn't belong here. Arguing policy is irrelevant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose link - per IIO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose link - Business spam for a black market site; not accessible by normal linking (another violation of the linking guideline); high risk of insertion of malware. A laundry list of reasons why NOT to link. Carrite (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

'Business spam' is a pejorative and not a reason; black market description is irrelevant; not accessible by normal link is a red herring and SR no harder to access than any site behind a paywall such as almost all academic papers. Risk of insertion of malware doesn't even seem right - we're worried about phishing, not browser exploits - and in any case is clearly not the major reason cited by people plumping for deletion. --Gwern (contribs) 19:31 13 April 2013 (GMT)

• Comment(s) - First, WP:ELOFFICIAL says that we should link to the official website of the subject of the page. Even if a link is 'spam' (in the broadest sense), a page should have a link to the official website (we, liberally, whitelist porn-site's official landing pages if their topic is notable, even if the link has further only been abused). BUT, it is not a MUST, ELOFFICIAL ALLOWS the official link, it does not say that there HAS TO BE the official link. The official link is just there as a service to the reader. There is no real need for it, it is a service. It is not an argument to say that the link has to be there because WP:ELOFFICIAL allows it.

Silkroad is hosted on .onion, and the various silkroad links have been abused (insertion of phishing links, redirects, etc. etc.). That resulted in silkroad###.onion links to be blacklisted. Blanket blacklisting there does not mean that the official link should not be used, it means that that should be discussed in a proper manner, and that the official link, and only the official link, could go through a whitelisting request to be allowed. It should be noted, that the continuous abuse of .onion links now has resulted in a blanket blacklisting of all of .onion. Where needed, the appropriate, specific links which are official can be whitelisted - if that need is here, get consensus to add it, and request for whitelisting. Discuss before adding in this case, discussion trumps blacklisting.

So, unless there is a convincing legal argument why linking to this site is disallowed (in the relevant parts of the world), I do not see why the official site should not be linked (and I doubt whether it is illegal to link to this site anywhere). Arguing that the official site does not serve encyclopedic purpuse is similar to arguing that there is no encyclopedic purpose to link to 'www.wikimedia.org' on Wikimedia. Here, on this local page, having the official link is not 'spam', not in any way more than having the business link of 'www.wikimedia.org' on Wikimedia (however, it is spam practically anywhere else). Neither is it a problem that one needs special software to access the link, if an official site is behind a pay-wall we do link, if an official site requires flash we also link - even if that would be discouraged by WP:ELNO (we should mention that special software is required, like we should do with e.g. .pdf-links or YouTube videos). Any, any other link that is phishing, or redirecting to the site (especially those which have referrals) should, without questions asked, be blacklisted (probably on meta ..?) and one should consider to liberally indefinite block anyone on sight who adds such links in bad faith (WP:IAR also applies to those who find it necessary to IAR and change the links to their favour without establishing consensus). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose link per what Dennis Brown said. If ANI said no then it's still no the way I see it. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI didn't say no. A small quorum of commenters there failed to agree on what the issue was and failed to even reply cursorily to critics; see my previous comments. --Gwern (contribs) 19:31 13 April 2013 (GMT)

Keep Wikipedia does not stand on the morality of the issue, if they did we wouldn't have articles of serial killers in hopes that someone wouldn't go out and try it or gang related articles. If someone wants to check out Silk Road it's their decision and Wikipedia's responsibility to accurately disseminate real world info. If anything you would be helping people stay safe by not going to an alternative site, a government monitoring site, or god forbid a site with worse intentions engineered to show up in search results above the real site. Because a few countries have made it illegal does not reflect the whole of mankind, we are not our brothers keepers.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 10:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose link per WP:ELNO#Links normally to be avoided and as per prior consensus. Editors should please stop edit warring to restore the link whilst this RFC is open. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

None of those ELNO categories apply, and see my previous comments about this so-called "prior consensus". --Gwern (contribs) 19:31 13 April 2013 (GMT)

Just because you don't agree with a consensus doesn't make it any less a consensus. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling something a consensus doesn't make it any more a consensus, either. I've pointed out that the ANI pages are clearly not a consensus: a handful of users who disagree about everything and admit that the link is not banned and cannot reply to their critics. And no one here has made a case about what part of EL or RS or V or ToS the link would actually violate (the strategy seems to be to throw every policy at the wall to see if it sticks, ignore criticism as Dennis has specifically admitted to doing, and if all else fails, claim that we should simply ignore policy in this case because we really want to delete that link). --Gwern (contribs) 21:49 13 April 2013 (GMT)

I've not admitted any such thing. I'm not ignoring your comments, you are simply wrong and I tire of repeating myself. There is a consensus, you have a conflict of interest and keep adding back your own website that fails WP:EL and WP:RS, it appears most people here agree with the previous consensus. What you are doing now is badgering and simply contradicting everyone. Your desire to promote your own website has blinded you to the reality of policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You have admitted it by refusing to engage with any of my comments and provide any reason beyond mindless repetition of existing points. Is that tiring? Too bad; maybe you should stop doing it then. My 'conflict of interest' has nothing to do with the RfC (if it were possible to make the deal that the actual SR URL be kept and my link deleted, I'd be perfectly willing to make that faustian bargain, because I care about the quality of the article and not mindless enforcement of what you believe to be consensus). And IIRC, I have added the link exactly once, when I reverted your deletion - so, very far from "keep adding back your own website". (Hey, maybe it's a good page and worth linking? Certainly some journalists have found it useful and worth linking in their articles.)

'Badgering'? That's amusing, when all I'm doing is pointing out that no one has made any legitimate arguments here. Here are some simple questions you and no one supporting you has answered, Dennis, despite my asking time and again: What clause of EL, exactly? What clause of V, exactly? What term in the ToS, exactly? What clause of RS, exactly? Don't give me the same tired general non-reply that it "fails WP:EL and WP:RS"; if it really does fail, you can name the clauses. --Gwern (contribs) 01:22 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Gwern your argument and everyone suggesting inclusion under the external links policy has a severe issue that trumps it, which is why all the carrying on and moaning about it is irrelevant. You have several key points which disprove your argument from every angle. I shall sum them up now.

# The link itself is not feasible for most readers as it requires TOR to access. # The link itself has proved subject to well-known phishing. # The phishing attempts resulted in recorded use of Wikipedia enabling access for illegal activity. # A bit of a stretch under WP:ELNO #3 "Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida." # ELNO #7 "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." # WP:ELNEVER as the site is blacklisted, this RFC cannot overturn that as it is outside its scope. # A bit of a stretch, but per the TOS of Wikipedia may cover it. # WP:IAR if all those fail for a cited rule because the website serves only to function as an illicit drug black market in the same sense as the armory, placing their functionality as unquestionably illegal and a liability to Wikipedia if included. IAR exists for this purpose. It also covers morals to some extent, but discounting those, the proven enabling of readers to more easily access illicit drugs trumps because it enters legal territories and public relations issues should it persist. The media could pick up that Wikipedia is hosting the URL for the notorious drug website and create a debacle if it isn't dealt with. We previously has the issue for other things and a record of such matters is at Wikipedia:Pornography#Some examples of debates, decisions and non-decisions. Inclusion of the link will damage Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding these points, ChrisGualtieri:

1. YouTube videos are also not accesible for all readers, they also require special software. Same goes for pdf files, or sites behind a pay-wall. They are discouraged, not forbidden in any form, and it is not a reason to exlude the link on that reason. It just should be mentioned that the site requires special software.
2. NO, the official link is not, the many, many 'alternative' links or redirects thereto were phishing. Only the official link should be here, not any redirects to it.
3. Yes, because others were trying to add phishing links that redirect to the official site, that is not because of the official link that is there.
4. For as far as I can see, viewing the content is not illegal in the state of Florida, it is probably illegal to buy stuff there. And it is not Wikipedia's goal to police the world. People in Florida can still go to the site and buy stuff. IF Wikimedia's legal department thinks that linking to the site violates the law, let them say so.
5. That is what whitelisting is for, we discuss, or even RfC, whether a link should be there, and then we do a whitelisting. We also whitelist well known porn sites for the use on the subject page only, whatever further abuse has been performed using that link.
6. What part of TOS?
7. No, that is a wrong implementation of IAR. The website may be an illicit drug black market, but it is again not Wikipedia's function to police the world. 'The media could pick up that Wikipedia is hosting the URL ..', no, Wikipedia is NOT hosting the url, it is linking to the site (at least, we are discussing that), and there are many, many other places around the world that are linking to that site. Again, this is something that Wikimedia's legal department should decide whether, but it is no reason for us to decide that the link should not be here, we have to base our decision on policy/guideline, and I do not see anything in our policies and guidelines that prohibits it - it does not go any further than discourage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

If anything, a decision not to link would be a violation of WP:NOTCENSOR. The only reasons not to link is a) when there is a legal issue, which is something that Wikimedia/OTRS is implementing, or b) when the page linked to (not a page somewhere on the domain - we would blacklist that specific page) installs malware, contains malicious scripts or trojan exploits. Or if the site is a redirect site by itself. Neither is the case here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

To reply to Chris:

1. Irrelevant. Paywalls are even less accessible to readers; we still link them. This counterexample has been brought up many times before; mocking other counterexamples like sites requiring Flash like YouTube does not fundamentally deal with the issue that accessibility is not an issue for any .onion link, much less this specific one.
2. Irrelevant. The link is not phishing.
3. Irrelevant, since the link is not phishing.
4. Irrelevant, since you did not specify how this is "content that is illegal to access in the state of Florida". I see you've cited later 21 U.S.C. § 841, so I assume this is what you think specifies what content is illegal to access? I've googled "21 U.S.C. § 841" and Cornell tells me it has to do with 'manufacture' and 'possession' of drugs. What on earth does this have to do with linking, on the Internet, to a webpage, on the Internet? Do I manufacture a drug just by browsing to a page? Am I in possession of a drug when I click a link from Wikipedia? What makes "21 U.S.C. § 841" at all relevant to our discussion here? Or is merely looking at a site now illegal? (Hm, murder is illegal, so I guess I am now a murderer or accessory if I watch footage on the nightly news of someone being attacked and murdered.) If so, perhaps you should be citing the part of the statues dealing with, you know, websites, since we're discussing here, you know, websites.

"Wikipedia has BLP concerns for issues of libel and removal of text and images for copyright. Linking to an unquestionably illegal site falls under this."

Falls under this? Yes, I suppose it does, if you think apples are oranges. 'We ban copyright infringement, because it's Bad, and this website is Bad and even though it has nothing to do with libel or copyright whatsoever it's still Bad and so by my logic, we must ban it!'

1. Dupe of #1.
2. Blacklists can be appealed, and this RFC is easily reinterpreted as 'if the URL were unblacklisted, should it be included?' This point is purely technical and procedural.
3. No, no, given how much pro-deleters were bleating about the ToS before, do go on! How do the ToS ban it? Let's be clear here: do the WMF Terms of Service ban the Silk Road URL? Yes or no?
4. "IAR, because I don wanna!" Yes, well, I would like it there, so I guess I should invoke IAR too...? Your debacle suggestion is a little hilarious - you have any idea how many online news articles already link it? Perhaps you should read up on the Streisand effect. --Gwern (contribs) 23:09 14 April 2013 (GMT)

Question: From the very limited understanding of the subject I have, I understand that URLs to Silk road are dynamic, that is they change, and can be accessed only through TOR, if that is the case how useful is providing a URL? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean? It is true that a few years ago Silk Road shifted its .onion address (from the one starting with 'dk' to the new vanity one starting with 'silkroad'), but otherwise its address is always the same. You plug in 'silkroad etc' and go. Perhaps you might be confusing the address with how the Tor onion routing works (passing you through a different sequence of servers each time)? But that is purely a low-level technical detail which doesn't matter to visitors or this article. (Interesting detail: the onion addresses are actually part of a cryptographic public key which verifies that the final destination is controlled by the original creator of the public key.) --Gwern (contribs) 22:59 16 April 2013 (GMT)

• Support link: Regardless of the status of legality in Florida. Actually as I understand, the link is quite useless unless it is a TOR browser. It is a statement we make that Wikipedia doesn't censor. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia is not censored. Portillo (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Response by ChrisGualtieri

I have struck my own arguments as they are defeated, I've been swayed to neutral on the matter.Here's a point by point of what's wrong with that. #Wow, talk about misinformation and outright wrong claims. YouTube has more then 1 BILLION unique users visit every month and that data is old.[5] NicoNico and Baidu might as well be objected to then. For every Flash update more then 400 million computers update within six weeks.[6] Though by reverse numbers, over a billion people have some version of flash in order to view Youtube. I think your argument there is entirely wrong. Moving on... #The official link on WIKI has been tampered with for phishing, end of story. Links that are problematic and are consistently targeted to put a burden on Wikipedia and are not obvious can and sometimes do get removed. Unrelated to your argument, but its vandalism is long and ongoing even when it was up. # You dodged the question! Wikipedia should not engage in making access easier to illicit content, while we primarly deal with copyrights, links to illicit content or ones which serve to break the law fall under this. I don't care if its the phishing site or not, the official link is to a site targeted by the US DOJ and ALL interaction on that site is unquestionably illegal under laws in the jurisdiction which Wikipedia servers reside. It is a liabilty. # Your point about viewing the content may be correct, but Wikipedia has no obligation to allow that link to remain as it does open up secondary legal liability and a PR nightmare. WMF can have say if they choose, but Wikipedia as a community typically handles such matters. Federal law trumps state law and considering the numerous arrests... Wikipedia is well within its rights to bar the link as per previous consensus. Also it is illegal under (21 U.S.C. § 841) so even 'legal' drugs are purchased illegally. # Wrong, 'Should the article contain link to the Silk Road website?' is the scope of this. It is not about trying to whitelist it. Procedural matters, the yes and no !votes mean nothing. Petition the blacklist. # Its on EVERY page when you read and you agree to it every time you post. [7] Violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 falls under this. End of story. Wikipedia has BLP concerns for issues of libel and removal of text and images for copyright. Linking to an unquestionably illegal site falls under this. # Because it is illegal and we have previously blocked it, the WMF has not needed action because the ANI has acted against it. We can submit to the WMF for their opinion, but they will probably remain silent unless they need to. There is no guarantee of a formal response. The Virgin Killer album got such a response and that was unusual. Lastly, your last comment about legality is covered by US Law, specifically 21 U.S.C. § 841 as the website is illegal under it. Therefore it is a concern that for many reasons from public relations, legal liability and encyclopedic value of it. Your arguments have not dealt with the law and have not dealt with previous consensus. Wikipedia has no obligation to include the link. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This may interest you: WP:OUTSIDE. nerdfighter 23:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow legal threats or actions that are illegal in the US State of Florida, regardless of the interpretation of that essay, per the Foundation and the TOS. Other than that, yes, the essay is correct that we don't concern outselves with the laws of other areas as long as it doesn't pose a burden on the Foundation. (ie: Copyright) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

offtopic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dennis, you need to quit hounding me. You are right WP:OUTSIDE is an essay just as WP:SUPERVOTE is an essay. Stop following me and refuting everything I say just for the hell of it. nerdfighter 00:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Nerdfighter, I've been on this talk page for a while, as well as participating at the ANI discussion on it.[8] Check the history, you are the new arrival here, not me, and no one is hounding you. If you really feel that my actions are hounding, I recommend filing a complaint at WP:ANI. Otherwise, your comments are bordering on a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC) That's the pot calling the kettle if I ever heard it. How am I attacking anyone? For someone in WP:WER you sure know how to get someone disinterested in editing. Just leave me alone and stop commenting on my talk. nerdfighter 01:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Illegal to access in the state of Florida

This claim need to be investigated further and beyond being a yes/no non-lawyer statement by a few Wikipedia editors. WP:LEGAL is quite clear that If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. With legal issues, everyone has an opinion and thus there is no limit to legal discussion, something which Wikipedia has experienced in the past regard other legal disputes. Learning from that, Wikipedia is not the place for legal disputes at all. This insight should also be obvious to anyone reading the linked policy, so can we please send this issue over to the foundation and thus leave it to them to decide if linking to the silk road from the silk road article is illegal in the state of Florida? Thank you. Belorn (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll second that. I'd really like a definitive answer as to the legality of the abovementioned link. This has already been sent to the Oversight team, and as a volunteer responding there, all I can do is give it my best shot (and IANAL) with the information and experience I have - Alison ^❤ 07:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that being a Functionary, you have already forwarded this to WMF, which I agree is a good idea. It isn't an emergency situation but they obviously have an interest and a right to opine if they so choose. That is only one of a few problems with the link, but one of the more important considerations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't want to be 'that guy' that would in hindsight be declaring it illegal and to try and prevent from 'losing' the argument by invoking the 'last resort' to that option. As Dennis Brown noted, it is only one of a few problems with the link, but a summary judgment of sorts from WMF trumps all so we don't have to waste time bickering over WP:OFFICIAL and such. I believe WMF should be noted as we have this page assisting in accessing the black market and the editor with the strongest case has a COI, via owning a website about Silk Road. I will yield that probably viewing the page itself is legal, but making any purchase is illegal. And while I'm no lawyer, the concern of giving it a permanent and visible link is of great concern. Even the goatse image was removed despite being 'official', while a link is a different case, it will set a precedent about certain types of content. Even if WMF remains silent an addition to policy about unabashedly illicit sites should be noted. We do not link to hate and terrorist websites for probably the same reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether I have a CoI or not; your strange language aside - 'owning' a website? Yeah, I suppose I do own it, in the way anyone with a blog or personal website 'owns' it - if I were a spammer or something, then logically my CoI here ought to be in favor of me deleting the official SR URL and also removing as much information as possible from the Wikipedia article in order to drive traffic to my own page. ("Click here to learn what Wikipedia doesn't want you to know!" etc) Anyone can google the statue you cited as your legal authority and see for themselves that applying it here doesn't make a lick of sense (gee, I'm glad you'll yield that 'probably' viewing the site is legal; that's a step up! Perhaps next you and Dennis will admit your invocations of RS/V/EL/ELNO were irrelevant). No worry about my possible CoI and biases there; anyone literate can check what the statute says. As for your 'hate and terrorist websites' claim - cite? The first hate site I thought of off the top of my head, the infamous Stormfront (website), includes their URL prominently in the infobox, as does its only sibling Neo-Nazi article, Redwatch. (I wondered about 'terrorist websites', but I don't know any except Inspire (magazine), which doesn't seem to have an official website, but the external links still includes 10 links to copies of issues.) That's 0 for 3 of 'hateful websites we cover but also refuse to link to'. --Gwern (contribs) 18:46 15 April 2013 (GMT)

Argument below is better then you made, so I will make my final reply there. It basically defeats my arguments. And good note with those hate websites... probably should not have used that term. And terrorist ones seem to apply to the UK more then the USA, will have to remember the difference in laws. Anyways, if your argument does win, keep this in mind. Ask for a whitelist to the real link and blacklist all variants. That ends the phishing matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the phishing is a bit of a red herring (if you'll pardon the expression!); we can keep the silkroad*.onion ban and whitelist the official address etc. --Gwern (contribs) 18:38 16 April 2013 (GMT)

Just a note, all of .onion is now blacklisted, as inappropriate links were inserted elsewhere as well. As what may be needed there, here the official site should be whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Review by Bovlb

I have read through the discussion in this RFC, the related discussion at ANI, the previous ANI discussion, the March 2013 blacklist appeal, and the April 2013 blacklist discussion. This external link was first blacklisted in December 2012 with reason "+silkroad*.onion phishing site with changing url". I cannot find any discussion of the original blacklisting on the blacklist discussion page. I cannot find any related discussion on the whitelist discussion page.

There seem to be a number of arguments advanced against providing a link to the site:

Linking to this site would expose WMF to legal liability

No-one has been cited any past WMF announcement that covers this case. Although some laws (and the site TOS) have been referenced, the violation that would be involved in hosting or following a link to this website is not obvious, and has not been argued with any specificity. The WMF has (recently) been alerted to this issue and has not yet made an announcement. We cannot exclude content simply because some non-WMF editors claim that there may be legal liability.

The true link is hard to distinguish from fake phishing links, and is therefore prone to being changed, and harming our readers

This is a valid concern, that applies to many of our links (e.g. PayPal), but which is well within the technical capabilities of our spam blacklist/whitelist. Much of the past discussion seems to have been confused by the suggestion that the official site is also a phishing site. From the edit summary, the sysop who originally blacklisted the site might have suffered from this confusion.

Hosting the link does a disservice to our readers

I'm not sure how this argument works, but I think the idea is that we have a duty not to send readers to websites where they might be able to commit crimes. That seems a stretch; do we do this in any comparable cases? Some editors have compared this website to those that (primarily) host copyright violations, child pornography, and (promotion of) terrorism. I don't find those comparisons especially compelling, especially without specific examples.

Linking to this site is spam or otherwise violates WP:ELNO

These don't apply to the official site of the subject of an article.

Hidden site (.onion) addresses are not regular links and require special software

This is quite a compelling argument although, as has been pointed out, we do host other links that require special software beyond a vanilla web browser. I think this is a general issue we need to resolve for all external sites. If we are serious about wanting to host links to hidden sites, then we could provide a mechanism similar to the way we handle ISBNs, whereby we divert the onion link, explain about hidden sites, and offer a list of proxies.

We cannot insert links to blacklisted sites

This is a purely technical objection, since the intent of this RFC clearly includes changing that. Arguably this discussion should have taken place on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, but I see no point in moving it at this point. A positive consensus here would be a good starting point for a thread there.

While there might be some good arguments to be made against linking to this website on its own article, I cannot see that they have been clearly made so far. My conclusion at this point is therefore that the link should be included, in line with our usual practice for articles about websites. Bovlb (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, your arguments are strong. ELNO is beaten by OFFICIAL. I'd consider WP:CENSOR as a substitute for ELNO being invoked as others have noted.. much like IAR. The blacklist if not properly done, I would support its removal as a policy matter. I hope the WMF responds, but even if they don't, the community can handle it. While precedents are rare, such as Goatse and the Hiddenwiki, precedents are rare. If the decision is to include the link to the Silk Road, dealing with the phishing attempts will have to be done. Whitelist the real and block the others, or whatever. Gwern did show compelling information about the phishing attempts. Either way... my previous arguments are bested. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A side comment on .onion links: at least in this case, providing a proxy link (using either tor2web.org or the .to onion proxy) would only be useful for linking to the SR forums (which does not require any log-in, can be viewed through the proxy, and is 'public') but not very useful for the SR official site (which requires a log-in the proxies do not have, and is 'private') since all you could see is the log-in form/page. This isn't a problem for people visiting directly since they can just create a free throw-away account then and there and log in and view the site as they please. --Gwern (contribs) 18:42 16 April 2013 (GMT)

The sysop who originally blacklisted the official site has confirmed that blocking the official site was not explicitly intended. Bovlb (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

While that may be true, that doesn't necessarily mean that my opinion is that the link should be allowed. First of all, the blacklist entry has already been changed to include all .onion sites. Also, I don't see a strong consensus in the above RfC for keeping the link on the page. Finally, it would be wise to wait for a response from WMF about the legality of the link. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the blacklist now excludes all .onion sites. The admin who added it noted "there is no good reason to keep .onion off the blacklist when the whitelist can take care of the 2 or 3 legitimate URLs with that subdomain." I agree that blacklisting all of .onion and then whitelisting selected legitimate sites is probably the way to go. For completeness, I note that there are as yet no .onion entries on the whitelist.

I agree that there are many voices on both sides of this RFC but so far I don't see any strong policy-backed arguments against inclusion. That might change, of course. That's what the RFC is for.

Regarding waiting for the WMF, I strongly disagree. If the WMF chooses to prohibit some content, then we'll implement and enforce that prohibition; unless and until they do, it's a matter for the community to decide. It is not our policy to prohibit content merely because someone speculates that the WMF might prohibit it. We don't wait for permission from the WMF in order in include content. What if WMF never gives an answer one way or the other? Do we keep the content out forever?

Bovlb (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why we can't

We obviously want to include a primary link to every article whenever possible. But what about when the website sells illegal or dangerous drugs? Are we really arguing to include a link to websites that sell plastic explosives? And isn't our TOS strictly against linking to sites that sell child pornography?

This isn't about being "anti-drug". Actually, I'm pro-legalize most everything and I've always been very open about that here and in the real world. This is about publishing a link to illegal, dangerous and exploitative material. Period. It isn't censorship, we aren't deleting the article, we just aren't facilitating a direct link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have strong feelings on this matter, but I would really like to tie things back to policy, if we could. Do we have a policy against including links to sites that sell illegal/dangerous drugs and plastic explosives? If we do, can you please cite it? If we don't, do you plan to propose a change to policy?

The only thing I can see in the TOS about child pornography is in section 4: "Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography". The article you link to is a little thin on details and doesn't really confirm anything, but let's assume for the sake of argument that Silk Road does host child pornography. Clearly, linking to a site that hosts child pornography does not constitute posting child pornography, so the first clause does not apply. Does such a link violate "applicable law concerning child pornography"? I have made a good faith effort to find any Florida or US federal law to that effect, and I cannot. If you have specific information on how posting such a link would violate the TOS, please share it.

Let us instead assume that merely linking to a website that hosts child pornography is a violation of some law, and therefore both illegal and against the TOS. Should we therefore exclude links to a website because one anonymous person once saw something he concluded to be child pornography, but which the authorities could not confirm? Even if it's not the primary purpose of the website? Even if child pornography is specifically prohibited on the site? Where do we draw the line? According to some reports, Wikipedia itself hosts child pornography.

Finally, can you give any examples of other websites that we have articles about but do not link to?

Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Short answer is, I've contacted the Foundation myself and asked them to review. It isn't about my strong feelings against this website, it is about protecting the interests of Wikipedia and not opening ourselves to liability. For example, federal courts have previously ruled that linking to infringing material is the same as publishing it (Yes, this is stupid, but they have ruled this way, see the 2600 / DeCSS case), and while there is conflicting case law on this, some of it says that linking is the same as publishing. I am not a lawyer, I'm not giving anyone legal advice, but my experience here, over many years, says this is a liability nightmare, and there is an ethical issue about whether or not the Foundation wants to link directly to a website that sells child porn anyway. The link itself is not inherently encyclopedic, only the information contained in the article. The link is purely a convenience. At the end of the day, the Foundation owns Wikipedia, you and I don't, and their interests come before our desires, or our votes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering what happened to you. I see you have learned nothing from the discussions. To address in reverse order:

1. deCSS / 2600 was about contributory copyright infringement, and as I already pointed out, that is irrelevant.
2. The Armory's weapons are irrelevant because that is not what we are discussing linking to, because the site has been shut down so we couldn't link to it even if we wanted to, and because it is not illegal to link to any more than Silk Road itself so if we wanted to link to it and could link to it there would be no problem in so linking.
3. Child pornography is irrelevant because Silk Road bans it (one of the few things they do ban!), if there were such items it would have been a temporary thing and no more a reason to not link to SR if there were a reason than the occasional CP being uploaded to 4chan would be a reason to not link to it in 4chan. But actually, there's a fantastically better reason to not give the slightest damn about this point: because the writer fucked this up, the CP wasn't even on Silk Road! No, I'm serious: trace back from the article, and you'll find the original source for your link is http://muckrock.s3.amazonaws.com/foia_documents/1170137-002_---_305-DE-0_Serial_438_---_Section_1_1030722.PDF and if you go to pg3, the mention of Silk Road, here is what is actually is said (emphasis added): "Complainant explained that he was using the TOR network to look for a deep web location called the 'silk road'. He visited the TOR directory at the following site: [redacted] At this site, he noticed a link to 'adult' websites and clicked on it. He noticed a link on the next page for 'TSCHAN' which he recognized to be a hacking affiliated group. When he clicked on this link, hew saw pictures he described as child pornography" etc. So in other words, this dude was browsing the Hidden Wiki, and as everyone knows, the Hidden Wiki takes an extreme view of freedom of speech and will link you to CP if you want. Nothing to do with Silk Road! Dennis, all you had to do was take a minute to click two links, scroll down, and look at the PDF to see if the article wasn't a load of complete bullshit. You didn't. EDIT: I contacted the author of the article with my above observations, he agreed, and the ars technica has been corrected to clearly specify that the report of child porn was not about the Silk Road.
4. Farmer's Market: not Silk Road, irrelevant.

So to sum up: 1 issue which I previously pointed out to be irrelevant; 1 issue which is not illegal and a moot issue now anyway; 1 issue which is pure fantasy and isn't even true; and 1 issue which is irrelevant and off-topic. --Gwern (contribs) 04:06 19 April 2013 (GMT)

Regarding your revert of Dennis Brown's last deletion, I think it can't be justified as of now. They do say what he deleted on their site, but if their site can't be linked to, how can it be referenced in an encyclopedic article? I think until that is settled, everything must be referenced by independent sources. If you have one, then I think it should stay, otherwise I think it should be reverted back.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

About contacting the Foundation when a issue might have legal impact on Wikipedia itself. This is the right thing to do. Anyone who did this followed the procedure as given by the policy, consensus, and my guess, the foundation itself. Legal problems surrounding Wikipedia is one that they are best suited to evaluate, and they've got procedures tailored for it. No matter what personal opinion I have about law theory in the USA or more specificly, the state of Florida, I as an editor am not the actor to decide legal decisions. I am not a lawyer. I don't live in that place of the world. I am not the legally responsible person for the project. So if and when the foundation makes a decision, I think consensus on this article will be to follow their decision with very little fuss. Belorn (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the reverting of my previous deletion: If a fact can not be verified, it has to be removed. Currently, there is no way to link to that information, and some information flatly contradicts that statement, so WP:V comes into play. The WP:BURDEN is always on the person wanting to add information. I've reverted it back out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like someone has properly sourced it, which is fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No thanks to you; why did you not attempt to source the information if you are so terribly worried about WP:V? --Gwern (contribs) 03:46 26 April 2013 (GMT)

• Dennis: Thanks for your response. If you have legal concerns about this content, then communicating those concerns to the WMF is the right thing to do. I have also drawn this matter to the attention of the WMF's General Counsel. If and when they announce that the link must be excluded, we can remove it and blacklist it. In the meantime, inclusion of the link is a matter for Wikipedia policy and community consensus. No-one gets a veto power over content just by reporting they have contacted the contacted the WMF regarding legal concerns. It doesn't work like that.

I note that your response did not address my questions about policy. Should we infer that you cannot cite any policy that would exclude this link?

I agree that some legislation and court rulings have found that in certain circumstances linking to another website can contribute to copyright infringement. While such over-reach is very concerning, my understanding is that it applies narrowly to copyright violations. Applying it to websites that are associated with other crimes seems like a bit of a stretch to me (absent WMF advice), and not something we practice in other cases. If someone claimed that readers were using the official website links in our articles on Academi or Allanah Starr to commit crimes, should we remove those links?

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Since a filter was created specifically to prevent any *.onion links, I don't think a simple consensus by a few editors here on this page is sufficient to overcome that. I would strongly suggest waiting until they have piped in, as adding it now knowing they are reviewing might be frowned upon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the preceding section, the blacklisting of *.onion clearly anticipated that official websites would be added to the whitelist. A simple consensus here should be just fine, especially given the additional attention that has now been drawn to this RFC.

I have now received a reply from the WMF, and they were able to confirm two points for me: they are leaving this specific issue to the community; and we are not, as you suggest, required to suspend normal community processes merely because there may be a legal issue involved. They also drew my attention to this page, which appears to support the position I outlined immediately above.

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The chronological steps regarding the blacklisting of *.onion actually started with an blacklisting of a single .onion site, and a XLinkBot listing of *.onion. However, xlinkbot is not instant in reverting (and the editors watching the Tor related pages are faster), so when *.onion was proposed again on the blacklisting board, neither the administrator nor the editor know that xlinkbot already had *.onion listed. Even now with the blacklisting in place, xlinkbot still has an entry for *.onion. It should also be mentioned that a .onion site has existed in use for over a year, through consensus, on the Tor (anonymity network) article, and that article has not seen any .onion link abuse so far for 2013. After a consensus has been reached here, I will either have to make a proposal for white listing that link, or requesting that the blacklisting go back to xlinkbot as previously. Anyway, the current blacklist filter to prevent any *.onion links was not created in a vacuum, and as such need context when discussed. Belorn (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know Bovlb. If there is no legal issue with linking, then I can't see any legitimate reason not to link to it. While people may not like it for whatever reason, if we are to maintain a NPOV then we shouldn't make judgements on whether it is right for us to link to a site or not. As others have pointed out, there are many other questionable sites that we link to, e.g. 4chan and various porn sites. To leave out the URL for a website frankly seems ridiculous to me and it is clearly something which our readers could find helpful, whether they want to use the site or just look at it out of curiousity. Dennis' reasons not to link to it are pretty spurious since they don't list plastic explosives or child porn as the references I added last week demonstrate. People have also cited the ANI discussion for there being consensus not to include it, but as we should all know, content issues shouldn't be decided at ANI, but here and consensus can change regardless. Adding a link doesn't mean that we are in anyway supporting it either, just as for all other sites that we link to. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Whitelist request

In accordance with my review of the discussion above, I have submitted a whitelist request for this link. I urge anyone contributing to that thread to avoid rehashing points that have been adequately explored here. Bovlb (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The RfC is still open. It might simplify things if you had someone close it, first. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:28, 25 April 2013 (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.