Talk:Operation Onymous

Hidden services navbox

Thoughts on how to incorporate this page into Template:Tor hidden services. It probably shouldn't be included here if this page isn't linked, but I'm not sure where it would fit best. Doesn't seem to make sense at the top or bottom, and a row for something other than a hidden service would likewise be out of place. I might say that unless there are other once-removed pages about hidden services, the navbox should probably go? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Law enforcement is pretty much irrelevant to Tor services. I tend to agree with you, I'll remove it for now. zzz (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Effectiveness

The first paragraph of the section uses language that suggests that the operation was less successful than government agencies said it was, and this paragraph does not cite anything that to say this more directly.

The second paragraph is original research about the relative ineffectiveness of the operation.

I wouldn't be surpised if these two paragraphs are true and are easily supported with some citations. Perhaps we can start by finding some? I feel like reworking the language will come naturally once everything is cited.

Thomas Levine (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you think anything is not supported by RS please be more specific. I am unsure of exactly what is meant here, by Original research. zzz (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking for "language" that "suggests" anything, I can't find anything - except, I suppose, the word "just", which is used to "suggest" that 27 is significantly less than 400. zzz (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

BBC Source

@Signedzzz: A BBC source cited a 'technical breakthrough'

The BBC understands that the raid represented both a technological breakthrough - with police using new techniques to track down the physical location of dark net servers

Now I'm happy to beat this quote into an acceptable shape, because I'm trying to work out what the broad consensus is about the technical capabilities that were employed as there's a fair bit of speculation out there. This BBC quote I can trace back no further, hence me attibuting this directly to the BBC.

Let's say they're simply wrong or misleading. I believe it's notable that the BBC said this as many media outlets were saying similar things. As a result I think it should be included. May a reword or some kind?

Here's discussion on the Tor mailing list about that quote, they seem to moderately support the BBC's conclusions

Here's another "Could be BBC misunderstanding things. That does happen pretty regularly." they suggest.

Now the BBC does a follow up piece but it's by a completely different journalist to the original, possibly unaware that the BBC has already presented it's own theory.

Deku-shrub (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What clearly happened there is that the Interpol press guy spread the word about their omnipotence, and the bbc guy gladly lapped it up. This kind of rumour has no place in an encyclopaedia article. zzz (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit that is possible. I have emailed the second journalist asking whether the original quote still stands or was superseded by his piece which was more speculative because these different positions were never reconciled within the BBC. I may return to this if I get a response from him. Deku-shrub (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Europoll statement

@Signedzzz: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/operation-onymous-dark-web-arrests/

"this is something we want to keep for ourselves. The way we do this, we can’t share with the whole world, because we want to do it again and again and again"

Now you may argue this is an outright lie, but it's an important attributable statement which deserves inclusion. I would recommend up-playing the rebuttals to this rather than downplaying this statement from law enforcement because they may be lying.

Deku-shrub (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A quote isn't required, for one thing. It's a PR statement, designed for inclusion in newspaper articles. Putting it unqualified into this article is completely arbitrary and unhelpful. zzz (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

What's an alternative approach? I think the full statement conveys their sentiment well. Bear in mind, Interpol are deliberately playing the media with these statements, however I don't have a source on this fact. Letting the quote speak for itself is best IMO, and why I included it. Deku-shrub (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Since you've added a ToC, there should be a new section focusing on the extent of the exaggerated police claims throughout. There's a couple of sources I just noticed (haven't read them yet) which should help: [1] - probably not RS but still; and [2]. Probably more besides. The quote could certainly go there. But in the context of "Tor exploit speculation", it's misleading, as I said. So I think it should go for now. zzz (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

How's it now Deku-shrub (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Like zzz (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions

@Signedzzz: I don't agree with your removal of this link: https://www.nikcub.com/posts/onymous-part1

Yes it contradicts the information released, because this was the only methodological transparent study done, all the other information released was hyperbole eventually parred down to something close to accurate. This is why the list of cloned sites on this Wikipedia page is the best on the net, because of all the contradictions around. Just paraphrase the information as contradictory, don't remove it. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, any ideas? [3] Forbes cites the same source saying "around 50 actual sites were knocked offline." zzz (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I meant contradicts the article. zzz (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree Forbes contradicts the source. I'm taking the forbes citation for the notability and the source article for the accurate figures Deku-shrub (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the WP article! The previous sentence in fact. Which is well-sourced, from multiple RS. zzz (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Added dates to the prose to better illustrate the changing figures the time line Deku-shrub (talk) 18:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The BBC article [4] says

On Friday, Europol said co-ordinated raids between 16 European countries and the US had resulted in "410 hidden services being taken down". It later clarified this, stating that while 400-plus pages were closed, many were pointing to the same hidden illegal services - the pages had belonged to 27 individual services that were seized.

and then goes on to quote Lewman of the Tor project "When they say they've busted 400-something, you expect 400-something to have actually been busted. And it doesn't seem that's the case. What they've said was, 'Oh no, we've broken apart 400. And no, now it's 50. Now it's 27. And... maybe it's actually less than that.'" So, who's right, then? The BBC, countless other news orgs, the Tor project and the FBI themselves and Europol - or a self-published, self-styled "security researcher" linked in one Forbes article, which doesn't even get its facts remotely right? Am I missing something here? zzz (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith on the part of Cubriliobc: Then, are we saying that Europol suddenly wanted to downplay the success of their own operation, days after going to great lengths to grossly exaggerate it? zzz (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nik Cubrilovic is a respected researcher and reporter https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Nik+Cubrilovic All other sources have been quoting law enforcement sources, he's the only one did the first hand research. Hence the inclusion of all figures as the different figures reported is a part of the story Deku-shrub (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything yet indicating that he is a "respected researcher". He has had a number of articles published, including in Huff Post, Guardian so he's definitely a journalist. The only other article I can find so far that mentions the research you included in this WP article, in Wired [5] describes him as "Australia-based blogger Nik Cubrilovic" - confidence-inspiring. And it goes on to say, "If corroborated by others, the findings may be viewed as good news for privacy advocates..." A primary source needs some independent corroboration, at the very least, or it cannot be relied upon. Is there any independent corroboration? zzz (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a double standard at play here. Are you suggesting the misleading figures from law enforcement should be given more weight than from someone who have methodologically and transparently provided expert analysis? Because I disagree, I very much side with Cubrilovic's analysis both in terms of accuracy and in terms of the notability as given by the further press coverage it received. Also you have a valid point on the COI which he should not have done, however I support the inclusion none the less. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So far I just see a struggling journalist trying to make a name for himself, who by claiming to have done some research "based on a web crawl" (couldn't the Tor Project have managed that, then?) gets himself mentioned in a couple more articles. I'm going to go ahead and remove his research from the article, per WP:V, without which we're all just writing a blog. It'll still be in the history if you find some compelling evidence that this is more than just a career enhancement for a nobody (which is what it looks like). zzz (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned you're not reading the research here. Please read just this page. https://www.nikcub.com/posts/onymous-part1/ What has been put together his far from any career enhancing blog. It's a detailed analysis comprised of multiple key sources combined with a respectable crawling methodology. There is no superior source to this, and it's coverage in mainstream media reflects its quality Deku-shrub (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed an account called Cubrilovic edited the article himself, so I'll just return the article to how it was before that, since almost nothing apart from his supposed research, and a list of supposed websites based on it, has been added since. zzz (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have undone this, reimplementing your other changes so as not to be antagonistic. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Apart from changing the order of the sentences in the first paragraph - apparently for no reason - there was one short paragraph of speculations about theoretical Tor attacks, couched in technical language, but there's little or no relevance to the actual events of Operation Onymous, since there's precisely zero evidence that any such methods were used (WP:UNDUE). Just another case of totally unencyclopaedic, unverifiable self-advertising. zzz (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I follow Tor etc pretty closely, and the story of 'it could have been XYZ' is very much a part of the story, hence so much media speculation. But, I seperated out the speculation from the facts deliberately! Deku-shrub (talk)

@Deku-shrub, I have no idea why you are calling what is basically just a list of websites "a detailed analysis". Or what you mean by "multiple key sources". Also, "coverage in mainstream media" is not how I would describe a brief mention in online tech sites. zzz (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute over key source

Since @Signedzzz: and I are close to edit warring over whether Nik Cubrilovic's research warrants inclusion or not, I think it's best we get some additional editors to weigh in at this point Deku-shrub (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

"Warrants inclusion" is kind of vague. Is this sentence, for which it is currently used in the article, the major point of contention: "Research published later in November 17th based on a crawl of all onion sites was able to partially confirm the statistics from law enforcement, discovering 276 seized sites, of which 153 were scam, clone or phishing sites."?

If so, I would Support inclusion, but we should include secondary sources as well -- we wouldn't include it if it were only this one primary source. It looks like Gizmodo, Tripwire, TechCrunch, SCMagazine, and Vice all picked up Cubrilovic's work. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhododendrites.The sentence "Research published later ..." was added by User:Cubrilovic (presumably the same guy), since when the account has been dormant. Then it was expanded by Deku-shrub into Operation_Onymous#Seized_site_list.

Wired describes Cubrilovic as "Australia-based blogger Nik Cubrilovic", and follows with "If corroborated by others, the findings may be viewed as..." There has been no "corroboration", as far as I'm aware. It seems that Cubrilovic is a journalist with a few articles about internet stuff published in on-line news sources, who gained some extra exposure from the articles about his research listed above.

I've not seen any reason why his claimed research should be regarded as accurate or reliable, although it may well be a genuine effort. If it was from a team at a university or wherever, we'd say "According to a team of researchers at ..." In this case, we'd have to say something like "According to Australian blogger and journalist Nik Cubrilovic ..." I'd not be opposed in principle to allowing an External link to his website, but i don't know where Wp stands on self-promotion in general. zzz (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm still questioning whether you've read the research, I'm going to break down simple the introductory paragraph and put it here:

* @1mp0ster, @lamoustache - expert researchers in dark web matters

* The creator of the popular Ahmia onion indexer

* http://www.gwern.net/ - darknet market analyst extraordinaire

* DeepDotWeb definitive underground site guide and source of inside reporting

Finally of course, Nik himself who often writes and consults on such matters

Combined with the various citations posted previously by @Rhododendrites:

There is no better research Deku-shrub (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, the "research" is very little more than a categorised list of defunct websites. "@1mp0ster, @lamoustache - expert researchers in dark web matters", you claim - but provide no evidence for this. WP:V doesn't have coach-and-four-horse sized exemptions. zzz (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, Wired stated "If corroborated by others, the findings may be viewed as..." Wikipedia's bar is higher, not lower. Therefore the findings cannot be viewed here, period. Although, as I said, I'm not opposed to providing an external link, so I don't see why that's a problem. zzz (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've edited it down to "Australian journalist Nik Cubrilovic claimed to have discovered 276 seized sites, based on a crawl of all onion sites, of which 153 were scam, clone or phishing sites." which is fair. I think the Operation_Onymous#Seized_site_list still has to go, since it's either unsourced, or sourced to Nik Cubrilovic's unverified personal blog. zzz (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Just to clarify, when I said I would support including the research I meant including mention/discussion of it, not reproducing the list. His research on its own wouldn't have been enough, but since it was picked up by other reliable secondary sources I think it's good enough as long as we're not making claims beyond what those secondary sources picked up (in effect what "claimed" does here and "if corroborated" does in Wired). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

All right then, cheers. It's done. zzz (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks like some of the items on the list have other sources, though. Maybe those well documented ones could be included in prose rather than a list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to say about them except Silk Road, no one cares about the other ones. Their unimportance is their only feature anyone reported on/mentioned, I think. Which makes it futile (and difficult), IMO. It would only be at best an indiscriminate and incomplete list, ie What Wikipedia is not. zzz (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course people care about the other ones, that's why they have their own citations because they have their own notable coverage. Doxbin, Pink Meth, the fact the Cannabis Road forums were only the forums not a market, the fake marketplaces and fake Wikileaks and Islamist sites are all of internet. How about I report only these items rather than the full list eh? Deku-shrub (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In your list, only three - Doxbin, Pink Meth and "Cannabis Road Forums" have cites other than Nik Cubrilovic. These are covered by the statement in the article "On 5 and 6 November 2014, a number of websites, initially claimed to be over 400, were shut down including drug markets such as Silk Road 2.0, Cloud 9 and Hydra. Unless there is more than one brief mention in one DeepDotWeb article - and I think it's clear by now that there isn't - any more than that is just totally undue in this article. zzz (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The way we would typically handle what to include from a long list it to see what we have sources for as well as what's notable. I think if we have reliable sources for any that we have an article about, it's worth including in a single sentence list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The only one with a Wp article is Doxbin. zzz (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You yourself removed the original Pink Meth citation, now you're saying the list should't exist because you're not happy with Cubrilovic and Co's research still? Just tell me what inclusion criteria is acceptable to you so I can include as much as possible without you complaining about it please. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed your addition of Pink Meth to the above-quoted sentence in the article because, as I said in my Edit summarry, it's WP:UNDUE. Re "fake marketplaces and fake Wikileaks and Islamist sites" - Cubrilovic's blog could be briefly summarised, I was intending to get around to that myself. zzz (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Please move things about before removing them then :p Deku-shrub (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, but reproducing the list from his blog took us no closer to a brief summary of his findings - ie a summary of the bit in his blog where he summarises his findings. zzz (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)