Talk:Archetyp Market

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Archetyp Market article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on February 22, 2024. The result of the discussion was soft delete.

Lies, false information and very questionable "sources" regarding "CP controversy" and more

Since the article is now protected, it is probably time for this go through Wikipedia's process of solving the issue.

I will try my best to keep personal information and details about the person, Darkwebhistory, who is editing the information in again and again, out of the public discussion here and ready to be discussed in further steps in Wikipedia's process such as the conflict resolution. I will also try to keep the tone as neutral as possible.

Who or what is darknetdiscussions.com? How is it notable in any way? Where is the difference between me anonymously setting up a random website right now, claim unspeakable things, use it as a source on Wikipedia and that website?

Try this out: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22darknetdiscussions.com%22&ia=web

There is zero results. Another attempt:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22darknetdiscussions%22&ia=web

With safe search off, it is currently 7 results for me. The website has been offline for weeks as it is right now. It cannot be that important.

Looking at the user's talk page makes it much more clear. It is his own website. Again, he says it himself on Wikipedia, this is very public information right from Wikipedia: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Darkwebhistory

The other source is "DoingFedTime". Look up the name on your favorite search engine and judge for yourself. Additionally, take a quick look at the website. Again, I am just pointing to the sources being used in this article. https://doingfedtime.com/darknet-discussions-e01-asap-admin-milky-federal-prison/

The second source is creating a podcast with the first source. So the only source here is a group of two people.

That makes these edits very interesting:

He first removed the DEFCON controversy here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Archetyp_Market&diff=1243689824&oldid=1243622793

Stated reason: I want to double-check the citations from the last edits. Make sure they are within Wikipedia's rules.

Two days later, he reintroduced that part: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Archetyp_Market&diff=1243899616&oldid=1243689824

Stated reason: He felt comfortable in the sources (himself and his podcast partner DoingFedTime) now.

A few weeks later, he deleted it again: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Archetyp_Market&diff=1247803192&oldid=1247200424

Stated reason: He wasn't comfortable in the sources (himself and his podcast partner DoingFedTime) again suddenly.

A few days later, this apparently changed, when he not only reintroduced that part AGAIN, but added even more extreme allegations: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Archetyp_Market&diff=1250059934&oldid=1247803192

Stated reason: No real explanation, it is just back now with the very same sources (himself and his podcast partner DoingFedTime).

It all makes sense with the events happening in the background. There is tons of more proof for this being totally untrue, but in my understanding, I am not allowed to publicly post this here. If an administrator reads this, please feel free to add a contact e-mail address in the comments, so I can privately send it all to you. 87.170.3.184 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please try to be more succinct.

As these sources appear to be WP:SPS, and as User:Darkwebhistory appears to have a conflict of interest with one or more sources, I have removed the contested content and restored the banners indicating the problem. If reliable, secondary, and independent sources cannot be found, this article should be deleted. If such sources do exist and can be found, they should be added sooner, rather than later.

@Darkwebhistory:, "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Vandalism, and this doesn't appear to be vandalism. If I'm wrong, please explain why. Edit warring, especially to preserve links to your own website, is also not appropriate. You need to make the case for why this belongs soon, otherwise I (or someone else) will nominate it for deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (especially WP:GNG), Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Hi User:Grayfell. I just reinstated some of the improvements I made to the article earlier which were deleted when you reverted some older stuff. This is the third time a good quality edit of mine has been reverted on this page, but as far as I can tell this is because of an ongoing disagreement between you and User:Darkwebhistory and my edits are just getting caught in the crossfire. If that's not the case and you did intend to undo what I did earlier, please could you explain why? AlexGallon (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about these edits.

The changes to WP:TONE are appreciated, and I should've looked more carefully before reverting. I apologize for that.

My major concern about this article is the lack of reliable sources. These edits have re-introduced some template issues which I had previously fixed. When citing an archive, it is preferable to indicate the archived site and to include the original URL. It is also important to indicate when the source was archived. This is so readers know what they are clicking on and can more-easily establish reliability and WP:V. Considering the issues with reliability, obfuscating the names of these outlets doesn't seem like an improvement at all. I added redlinks to these sources under the assumption that if they are reliable enough to cite, they are likely WP:REDYES. If they are not reliable enough to cite, they should just be removed.

Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about undoing your template fixes. I was being lazy and did not pay enough attention to what I was copy-pasting over. I've just added them back. The lack of reliable sources is a concern of mine too. I had a brief look earlier to see if I could find anything good but came up empty.

I just noticed that you also redlinked https://tarnkappe.info/ which has an article over on German Wikipedia. I linked this in the body to make it clear where the detailed information about the founder came from. I'll add the link back into the reference just so I've redone everything I broke (I missed this one when I added back your fixes) but I'm not sure we really need both. AlexGallon (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I cannot edit the article anymore, could any of you please reintroduce my fix for the bottom of the article from here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Archetyp_Market&diff=1252566447&oldid=1250229235?

It is not a "defunct darknet market[s]", it does not belong in "Internet properties disestablished in 2017", not "Internet properties established in 2014" and not "Carding (fraud)". It is a drug related marketplace and the rest I think is self explanatory.

Thanks for keeping the wiki clean. 178.10.180.90 (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This is AlexGallon; I changed username.) Done. Looks like someone copy-pasted the cats from AlphaBay onto this page at some point. I added Category:Internet properties established in 2020 in line with that article and Silk Road.

Thanks for the heads-up. Pink Bee (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts (again)

Hi @Darkwebhistory. Please stop reverting (previous: [1] [2] [3]) the whole page. The larger edits you reverted were discussed above. If you only took issue with the smaller edits that happened after that, please only revert those. To say of your version that This is the correct version. all new edits dont have any cites or anything . it is vandalism at this point is simply not true. Frankly, the newer revision is better-written, better-sourced and more accurate.

CC @Grayfell as I believe this is the same issue you were dealing with before.

Thanks. Pink Bee (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I have added a couple of sources, but I still think WP:AFD may be the next step, unfortunately. Archetyp is a commercial service, and WP:CORPDEPTH has not been met yet.

@Darkwebhistory: you do not own this article, and do not get to decide that edits you don't agree with are vandalism. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and talk pages exist for a reason. Start using them.

Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those sources. I agree that the article should be deleted. Incidentally, it should not exist: it was silently re-created some time after deletion, but the issues were not addressed (same content, but different, and still unreliable, sources). Even with the reliable sources you found, we don't have significant coverage – just a couple of interesting facts. I'm happy to AfD this, unless someone else would rather do it.

Pink Bee (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the market's apparent popularity, as shown by the IEEE source, I am surprised there aren't more sources. They may be out there somewhere, but I did not find them. If, per WP:BEFORE, you cannot find them either and don't believe it's productive to keep looking, then I would support deletion. Grayfell (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that surprised. Archetyp is a boring market: it works. That's a good thing if you're a customer, and I would imagine that's why it's so popular. So far there have been no big law enforcement operations (known to the public, at least) and no unexpected shutdown, and it's not a particularly innovative market. It's modelled on the markets that came before, so there's nothing new to say there. At some point something interesting will happen, and we'll get a load of coverage. Until then, there just isn't much for anyone to say about it.

I missed the sources that you found, so clearly I need to put a bit more effort into looking. I'll see if I can turn anything up. It would be nice to keep the article. Pink Bee (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found five more sources. They are all academic – I could not find any reliable media coverage. I managed to replace one of the Darknet Discussions references, so we only have one of those left. We're doing better for reliability now, but we still don't have notability. Pink Bee (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]