Talk:Silk Road (marketplace)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Goods & Services "that could harm others"

I deleted the qualifying text that attempts to explain why certain goods & services are not allowed to be purchased on the Silk Road, as what "could harm others" is purely subjective and only raises more questions than it answers. In order to use this text, wiki would have to first describe the philosophical basis for why they believe certain goods and services will "harm others" and are prohibited, and other goods and services (such as heroin) do not "harm others" and are therefore allowed to be purchased & sold.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that "could harm others" is somewhat subjective especially in this context. However, they claim it as a fundamental principle of their site, so perhaps it might be most encyclopedic to instead rephrase that section to express their view that they do not allow the selling of goods and services that "could harm others". And perhaps add point that this claim has not been independently verified.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the most encyclopedic approach here would be to quote them directly, and then expand it out as what is specifically banned, so something like 'SR's rules ban what it defines as "goods which harm others"(cite), specifically firearms, stolen information...' etc. The same way you might write an article about a politician saying 'Politician X announced a "program to safeguard our unborn children", which involved funding abstinence sex ed, prenatal care...'. We don't take a position on whether we believe them or not (no doubt many people believe any illegal drugs are goods which harm others), we just say what they said and document what the actual concrete consequences & interpretations are. --Gwern (contribs) 19:16 18 April 2013 (GMT)

That sounds about right to me.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a reference saying that child porn and weapons are banned. I found this which says "Silk Road do try and operate a policy of not selling things which could harm others (at least against their own will), so thing liks [sic] personal information, credit card details, poison, and more recently guns are not sold, so it’s not all bad." I'd say that it's just about a reliable source for this, but I wonder what others think. SmartSE (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine to me. Considering there is conflicting information on that point, a solid reference is required and I appreciate you providing one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I found some better sources, which should hopefully clear things up. This could be used to cite that their terms of service forbid listing "anything who's purpose is to harm or defraud" if people that we should include this. SmartSE (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What about this graph? EllenCT (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm thinking the graph has no place in this article, which is about a website/company. Adding it would seem to violate WP:NPOV, as we aren't here to judge how dangerous their products are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Does whether the site is legal to link to under Florida law depend on what they are selling? EllenCT (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In case its unclear, see the comment by Bovlb which has the reply from the WMF and a link to a wiki page related to the issue. Reading it, the more telling line seems to be: it remains to be seen whether the courts will allow criminal liability for defendants who themselves do not commit or conspire to commit any infringing acts. Belorn (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In case its unclear, that's about copyright. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the graph has no place in the article. This is not an article about the relative harms of drugs, about arguments for legalization, about the War on Drugs, or any context where such a ranking would be informative (and I question how accurate it is - 'rational scale'?). This is an article about an online drug market, nothing more and nothing less. --Gwern (contribs) 03:49 26 April 2013 (GMT)

First, sry when my english is not the best, I'm german. I also agree with that, because the graph is absolutly not conform to the truth.

I think it's only a drug market, but what it includes is an impulse to let people discuss/reconsider about the fact that it's morally questionable to let the government prohibit substances which could not harm others, except oneself. It might be also interested to see how the competiton influences the quality of the drugs. If so and in a positive way, you can say it's an illegal project to proof that the prohibition is more harmful than the drug itself and this would be only one point in a big list of arguments.

I think this drugmarket will effect a big change in drug policy and the freedom for a lot of people. So why not write about this?

Best regards from Germany :)

Derbaltasar2 (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's all interesting and may be good for a research project or a political pundit, but what does that have to do with our Silk Road article? --Gwern (contribs) 01:27 25 May 2013 (GMT)

What to display in the web address field when we don't give a link

There is consensus that for at least some onion sites that we should not give a link to the site from the article. At Talk:The Hidden Wiki#Web address field in the infobox I have raised a question about what we should show in the infobox in place of a link in those cases, your views would be welcome there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

External link: case for restoration

During the contretemps in March, a link to an essay of mine, "Silk Road: Theory & Practice" was removed by an editor (we need not go into their true reasons). I've waited for things to calm down and the main issue to be resolved, and it looks like it has, so here we are.

The offhand claims made were that it was not really an RS. I would point out that EL does not require links to be RSes, but even if we made up that requirement, I think there's a good case for its inclusion.

Some generic evidence of my SR expertise: the _ars technica_ article cited above by a certain person as evidence that SR carries child porn was corrected after I pointed out to the author that this was impossible since SR specifically bans it, and was based on a clear misreading of the released FBI document. More specifically: Oliver Franklin drew upon my essay and asked me a number of questions as he was researching his recent GQ article "Unravelling the dark web" (and he did "Appreciate your help."); the BBC show "5 Live Investigates" likewise benefited from it and interviewed me over email for it; Dread Pirate Roberts has read the essay and thinks it's good; 2 English grad students have been intermittently emailing/arguing with me and a French documentary's director Loïc Ton That (for 13ème rue) recently contacted me for an interview about SR (he was referred to me by Christin) but nothing has yet come of either so I can't provide any links. WeirderWeb, while quoting some of my research on a prosecuted Silk Road vendor, describes me as "the man behind the web's most comprehensive guide to Silk Road". Ormsby (the journalist you may remember from our SR article) tweeted "@gwern leaves me for dead when it comes to in-depth analysis of @SilkRoadDrugs. Fascinating read"; links me on her site; and I noticed her most recently being interviewed:

Silk Road founder Dread Pirate Roberts hasn't signed on for a full interview quite yet but, interestingly, he does often oblige Ormsby's questions with quick answers. Even without a DRP fireside chat, Ormsby says she is happy with the caliber of interviewees so far. Outside of Silk Road, she's received "offers of assistance from people like Dr. Monica Barrett, who is Australia's leading academic on drugs and the internet and 'Gwern' of gwern.net fame, who has made some of the most comprehensive and well-researched analysis of Silk Road available."

More interestingly, Nicolas Christin (author of the 2012 draft of the paper "Traveling the Silk Road: A measurement analysis of a large anonymous online marketplace", linked in our article) contacted me to correct some quoted figures, and I was able to find a flaw in his dataset & methodology for estimating feedback on SR; we were able to diagnose and verify the problem before final publication in 2013 (you'll notice I am there in the acknowledgments); the specific section affected is on pg6 (4.3 Customer Satisfaction) if anyone wants to compare with the earlier paper. Besides being able to help research the quality of the compiled dataset, other original contributions in my essay include putting SR into a historical context with the cypherpunks' analyses of how black markets would run using an anonymous digital cash like Bitcoin (this was originally a solicited essay for a global village; I added the full version to my essay after they published a sadly abbreviated version), demonstrating a cost-benefit analysis using a LSD dataset, and maintaining the only comprehensive list of SR-related arrests & prosecutions. (I've probably forgotten some other things.)

Using my referrer logs and parsing through the hundreds of thousands of total hits (my essay has become the standard guide for understanding how SR works), I present the following 9 articles by either mainstream media or Notable figures which have drawn upon the essay or my work (I exempt some articles - Fortune, I'm looking at you! - which blatantly drew upon my work but declined to give me any credit or links):

1. Vice: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-silk-road-is-showing-cracks
2. Boing Boing: http://boingboing.net/2013/02/19/using-silk-road-game-theory.html (by Cory Doctorow); I particularly liked Doctorow's summary, he really got it:

a riveting, fantastically detailed account of the theory and practice of Silk Road, a Tor-anonymized drugs-and-other-stuff marketplace where transactions are generally conducted with Bitcoins. Gwern explains in clear language how the service solves many of the collective action problems inherent to running illicit marketplaces without exposing the buyers and sellers to legal repercussions and simultaneously minimizing ripoffs from either side. It's a tale of remix-servers, escrows, economics, and rational risk calculus -- and dope.

1. TechCrunch:
   1. http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/23/the-chinese-are-coming-the-chinese-are-coming/ (by Jon Evans)
   2. http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/24/the-business-of-bitcoin-entrepreneurs-see-opportunities-in-alternative-currencies/
2. The New York Observer's Betabeat:
   1. http://betabeat.com/2012/01/eight-months-after-sen-chuck-schumer-blasted-bitcoin-silk-road-is-still-booming/
   2. http://betabeat.com/2012/01/silk-road-secret-website-where-you-can-buy-drugs-is-hiring/
3. The Austin Cut: http://austincut.com/2012/01/silk-road-a-vicious-blow-to-the-war-on-drugs/ (this link should look familiar since our SR article is already citing it)
4. Jeffrey Tucker: http://lfb.org/today/top-alternatives-to-paper-money/
5. Crimesite: http://www.crimesite.nl/component/content/article/121-fraude/23404-bitcoin.html (I think this is a RS, although not speaking Dutch it's a bit hard to say; the site looks reasonably professional and its articles are external links in some of our articles, at least.)
6. http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/26/4468302/drug-enforcement-agency-seizes-11-bitcoins-in-south-carolina-bust-silk-road

This is all, I think, more than could be said for most external link sections. --Gwern (contribs) 03:12 28 June 2013 (GMT)

Since no one has objected and it's not a big change, I have restored it. --Gwern (contribs) 21:13 2 July 2013 (GMT)

Support Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Just suppressed the link

I added <nowiki> </nowiki> tags to the .onion address due to the recent malware attacks on the Tor network, to help protect viewers from accidentally viewing the site. I don't know if the seized notice page has malware on it or not, but it can't hurt to be safe. 72.227.66.91 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jake Wartenberg and Bovlb: That's probably okay. Maybe should readd to blacklist as it's now a defunct site with .onion. --DHeyward (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably paranoid, but then again the seized hidden site is available as a click-through regardless. Speaking of which, this is the first seizure notice I've seen which refers to, not a domain name, but a hidden site. Is this the first such? kencf0618 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. But I'm betting a bunch of persons that banked their anonymity on TOR and bitcoin just dropped a giant load. I suspect in retribution a number of malware crap will be dumped in some hope that it thwarts investigators. Reading the complaint, the FBI used an outside country host to tap into the inner workings and grabbed all the messages, wallets, etc, of the users. Reddit was replete with former clients complaining they just transferred a bunch of bitcoins to Silk Road wallets just before they were seized. Classic "I hope the transaction is automatically reversed before my gang and drug dealer connections ask for the drugs or their money back." --DHeyward (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hidden services

The Tor hidden services navbox, and the List of Tor hidden services are both full of redlinks and/or unlinked names. These need to be removed from the navbox until articles are created, and sourced in the list or removed. WP is not a directory, no more, and no less, if the directory is of hidden sites. Notability is the standard, not existence.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've just removed them. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Site statistics

'Formerly' or 'formally'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notreallydavid (talk • contribs) 02:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Arrest

The person arrested so far is known ONLY for being arrested in this matter, and we know nothing else about the person at this time. Policy at WP clearly indicates that a person doesnt get an article solely for being a suspect, unless the attention given them as a suspect is great enough (the boston bombers, etc), and i dont think he is that talked about (yet). so far his name has been turned back into a redirect a number of times. I would suggest anyone that thinks he now qualifies for an article to make a case for it on this talk page, and anyone who finds there is an article on him who wants to turn it into a redirect, bring it to AFD. lets talk about it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. See WP:BLP1E. Roll Ulbrecht into this article on Silk Road. --DHeyward (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, per WP:CRIME "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." We should not be substituting our "not creating an article" by writing a lengthy section here. He's presumed innocent, we cite the fact that he was arrested in association with this site, and maybe another line about the arrest for murder for hire. But we should not be giving much weight to it until and if he is successfully prosecuted. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

A narrative on the most significant charges is not prohibited. The three most serious charges should be detailed enough that the reader understands why 1) Silk Road was shut down and 2) the main indictments (namely a summary of the most serious charges from teh New York direct complaint and a summary of Maryland Grand Jury indictment). Sourcing the facts to the complainant and making sure that all crimes are "alleged" and not stated as fact is the requirement for BLP. Most of the information provided is not criminal. For example, tying Ulbricht to "Dread Pirate Roberts" is not a criminal accusation, it's a statement contained in the charging affadavit. Properly sourced, the narrative completely minimizes the criminal aspect while also providing the necessary background to understand Silk Road, the arrest of Ulbricht, and the ultimate shutdown of the site. I don't see how you are applying WP:CRIME to limit non-criminal statements. There are only three main crimes alleged: 2 murder for hires, 1 drug trafficking. Those are directly relevant and necessary for understanding. The rest is background statements that are not allegations of criminal activity. I've trimmed it down considerably from the orginal by removing superfluous detail but there is still a minimum detail needed to understand the current status and background. --DHeyward (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a person known for One Event. That one event is a Crime. Wikipedia:CRIME asks us to assume innocence (which you are doing by saying alleged), but also "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". Which we are not doing by trying to create a narrative about the individual here. As you say "A narrative on the most significant charges is not prohibited." True, but it should be about the site (i.e. "members of the site are accused of drug trafficking and murder for hire"). Writing a narrative about the individual crosses that line into BLP. I think it's fair to say he was arrested in association with the charges, but to tie him directly to them by saying "he was arrested for alleged murder for hire", with no other narrative of who or what he is, creates a WP:Weight/BLP problem. Which is why we don't wright articles about people accused of a crime because there isn't enough source materiel to describe them in any other manner. I'm not against inclusion of this information, I'm just trying to keep the BLP part up to par. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And you are ignoring WP:WELLKNOWN. This was a high profile website alleging billions of dollars in traffic. "Dread Pirate Roberts" was well known. Now Ulbricht is the person FBI identified has been arrested and identified as "Dread Pirate Roberts." Ulbricht arrest was followed immediately by the shutdown of the website and the allegation of multiple crimes. He is approaching notoriety worthy of a bio page as more information is revealed. For now, we can treat him in the article as his arrest and the the shutdown of Silk Road are tied together. The government does not have to prove he is DPR. They have to prove he committed the two murder-for-hire plots and the drug trafficking charge alleged in the indictment. If you don't want to tie him to DPR, we have no practically no sources for DPR owning silk road. We now have lots that say it's Ulbricht. Right now, the owner is insourced. If you would like to replace all the ownership to Ulbricht as stated in reliable sources but not tie him to DPR, that seems rather incredulous. I think it's better to state as what is reported by sources and not invent some fictitious wall because prior to the arrest, no one linked them. Now they are linked. WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate BLP Crime allegation citation. Ulbricht's indictment needs a summary. The owner of Silk Road needs to be sourced. The strongest source had been provided by the indictment and the media has picked up on it (even more than the obvious coordination of arrest, site shutdown, wallet seizures, and email accounts, etc). --DHeyward (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't simply ignore these results that associate the ownership of Silk road to Ulbricht than DPR. Source the separation if it exists. --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Those news sources are simply repeating the FBI's account. It's a very entertaining and compelling account, so it's not surprising that they aren't being entirely thorough about putting the word "alleged" in all the places they should. But ultimately the FBI is still the only source. – Smyth\^talk 12:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not WP:WELLKNOWN that Ulbricht is DPR. The WP:WELLKNOWN "fact" you are referencing is that the FBI "alleges" Ulbricht is DPR. Asserting we are ignoring WP:WELLKNOWN by saying it is simply "fact" that Ulbricht is DPR, because being so isn't a crime, is what we call Wp:Lawyering.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ulbricht is well-known as he was just arrested (see John Hincklrey as he was well-known for being arrested before being convicted). All the sources say he owns Silk Road. If you don't want to put DPR and Ubricht in same sentence, Ulbricht need to the Owner. That's what the sources say. Your interpretation of the sources is what we call "Original Research". --DHeyward (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A common-sense evaluation of where the news media are getting their information from is not original research. – Smyth\^talk 21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A common-sense evaluation of the sources is Ulbricht is DPR stated by the media and coordinating Ulbricht's arres with the shutdown of his website. By your standard, there is never a way to know Ulbricht is DPR. The FBI is not trying to prove it. They are trying to prove Ulbricht committed murder-for-hire. If you are going use WP:SYNTHESIS to support your WP:OR there is simply no article. It's a hagiographic depiction of the mythical DPR. Our sources say unequivocally that he is DPR. That is not alleged because it is not a crime. Lawyers at all these newspapers didn't all of a sudden forget about defamation law, becoming independently sloppy. If we use the reverse double-think logic apparently being deployed, we will never know whether Ulbricht isn DPR because the FBI didn't prove it to your satisfaction and their goal is prosecution of a crime, not proving alias. Please use the sources and not rely on your own interpretation. As laid out in the Grand Jury indictment, the direct criminal and a multititude of independant sources, Ulbricht is DPR. Also, the journalists that talked to DPR are no different than the UC officer that talked to DPR that ultimately tied him to Ulbricht. Why do you lend credence to one over the other? The media didn't. Why are you? --DHeyward (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion duplicates the one below. Let's continue below instead. – Smyth\^talk 09:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Using "alleged"

"Alleged" should be used for criminal accusations. Naming someone as another is not criminal and is simply a matter of fact that only needs to report who is calling Person A as psuedonym B. We use "alleged" to identify the criminal aspects, not the statement that are attributable to a source.
For example: "Ulbricht was identified by the FBI as Dread Pirate Roberts and the founder of Silk Road." There is nothing criminal being "alleged" so there is no reason to use alleged. "Alleged" is a two edged sword as if the FBI does in fact prove Ulbricht is DPR, but does not prove that Ulbricht/DPR committed a crime, we are disparaging the subject by using "alleged" to relate them.
Second, Ulbricht has been charged with crimes. "Ulbricht allegedly solicited murder for hire. Ulbricht allegedly profited from illegal drug sales. Silk Road was allegedly used for criminal activity by Ulbricht." etc, etc. Don't lose sight of what is criminal (where "alleged" is used and "innocent until proven guilty" and all the BLP protections apply for a person accused of a crime). Use "called" or "identified" where the association is not criminal (i.e. Ulbricht was called "Dread Pirate Roberts" in the criminal complaint by the FBI, or Ulbricht was identified as DPR by the FBI in criminal complaint). Nowhere in the allegations of crimes is being "Dread Pirate Roberts" a crime. Being the founder of "Silk Road" is not alleged to be a crime. Inserting POV that "Dread Pirate Roberts" is a criminal and so the association to him is "alleged" is not correct and possibly a BLP violation. The FBI alleged Ulbricht committed crimes. They stated that Ulbricht used the "Dread Pirate Roberts" pseudonym but didn't allege that was a crime. Whether Ulbricht is Dread Pirate Roberts is relevant to the case but since we can source who is making the claim, and the claim isn't a crime, there is no reason to qualify it as "alleged." The trial will be U.S. vs. Ulbricht and it is ultimately where guilt or innocence will be determined. If we have to put alleged in front of every statement, we would have to "allege" he was in San Francisco and "allege" he was in renting a room and "allege" he owned a computer. None of those things are crimes though, so we simply state who is making the statement. Please see WP:ALLEGED --DHeyward (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea that "Dread Pirate Roberts" is not a criminal under the laws of the United States defies common sense. You are making a pedantic mountain out of a molehill.--greenrd (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So your saying that all the feds have to do is prove Ulbricht is DPR and he get's life? That flies in the face of the entire legal system. DPR may have made incriminating statements but the indictment is Ulbricht. There is no allegation that being DPR is criminal. DPR isn't alleged to have committed crimes separate from Ulbricht. The point is that the connection is sourced and the connection in and of itself is not criminal. Ulbricht lived in SF, he had a computer, was at a library, etc, are things the FBI said. None are illegal. Nor is being DPR. --DHeyward (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The word "alleged" is used to protect against libel lawsuits. Since Dread Pirate Roberts has self-incriminated on multiple occasions, blatantly, it would be damaging to someone's reputation to falsely claim that they were DPR. Therefore, following normal practices to protect journalists and editors against libel claims, we should in fact the word use alleged there.--greenrd (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Greenrd is right. I have removed Ulbricht's name from the infobox for this reason, since this closely associates him with the site, an association which is yet to be proved. – Smyth\^talk 13:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Umm, no, he is not correct. The FBI said he was DPR. The didn't allege it was a crime. Since we attribute that it's the FBI that made the assertion, it is not any form of libel. It is silly to think that saying the FBI called Ulbricht the "Dread Pirate Roberts" is defamatory but saying the FBI charged Ulbricht with two separate attempts of murder-for-hir and drug trafficking related to his running of Silk Road is not defamatory. All are well sourced statements of fact. The indictment wasn't "Dread Pirate Roberts", whoever he might be: it was an indictment and arrest of Ulbricht. It was reported in many news sources so he is well known. Only in the section of the criminal complaint where they allege crimes would we use alleged. We are not asserting that Ulbricht is DPR, the FBI is, and we are reporting that fact. DPR was a well-known online persona and the association to Ulbricht is significant enough to warrant it. [WP:WELLKNOWN] is the standard as it was published in many articles. The FBI has said Ulbricht is the owner of silk Road. They have said Ulbricht is "DPR". They have alleged that Ulbricht contracted two murder for hires and profited from illegal drug trafficking on Silk Road. Those are not libelous statements in any sense of the word. They are well sourced facts and well within BLP and WELLKNOWN guidelines. We are not publishing all the charges or all the details. The "association" is the FBI arrested Ulbrecht, named him as the owner and charged him with crimes as well as shut down the site. We cannot cover the shutdown of Silk Road without mentioning that it stems from the arrest of Ulbricht and FBI's assertion that he owned it. In fact, we may have more sources naming Ulbricht the owner than an as yet unknown DPR. --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Using this article to tie him to DPR is not just a statement of fact, it's assuming guilt WP:CRIME. Tying him to DPR is part of the FBI's case against him, that is a statement of fact. We only know about the connection because the FBI Case against him. If he is "not guilty", then he may not be DPR and Wikipedia would have been used to advance the FBI's agenda of prosecution. Which is why we don't write very much about people who are accused of a single crime. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:WELLKNOWN. DPR was indicted as an alias. DPR is a defendant alias. Please read the title of the indictment and WP:WELLKNOWN. We cover a/k/a's all the time in organized crime. There is no assuming guilt. You seem to think that indicting Ulbricht on 2 murder-for-hires and drug trafficking related to Silk Road is somehow less assuming guilt than connecting him to DPR. The fact though is that all the names are equally indicted as a single person. The complaint reads "Ulbricht aka Dread Pirate Roberts aka Silk Road". What original research allows separating them out and saying "Ulbricht was indicted but not DPR"? Ulbricht was arrested and charged. How are you reconciling that the fact Ulbricht was indicted on 2 murder-for-hires and 1 drug trafficking charge and resulted in the shutdown of Silk Road and is noteworthy but saying the FBI calls him DPR is somehow a BLP violation. It's like saying we would be able to list all the charges against James Bulger but we can't call him "Whitey". You have WP:CRIME exactly backwards. We are required to note sources and accurately reflect them. They all say that Ulbricht was indicted and that the FBI named him as the owner of Silk Road. Separating them is original research when the sources report the link the FBI has made. --DHeyward (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

To be more clear, the fed sdon't have to prove Ulbricht is DPR, that have to prove Ulbricht committed murder-for-hire and drug trafficking using Silk Road. He used other psuedonyms on the charging document that are unrelated to the alleged illegal activity. There will never be a finding that Ulbricht is DPR as that is not part of what is required. Ulbricht will be found guilty of the criminal charges or not. The jury will not return a "he is DPR". It's notable that Ulbricht's arrest and charges led to the shutdown of Silk Road and that the FBI indicted Ulbricht with the alias. Our sources say it is. --DHeyward (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against mentioning the charges or the FBI's allegation that Ulbricht is DPR. However, giving every detail of the investigation and the affadavit is excessive at this stage, especially since Ulbricht has had no opportunity to respond. Let's just limit it to a summary of the charges. – Smyth\^talk 20:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Smyth's last three edits reflect what I was saying and provide a good concise summary without providing undo weight. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is there is no citation for the "Dread Pirate Roberts" being the owner. If it's the same as the indictment we have a BLP problem by not mentioning Ulbricht. We also cannot accurately portray the shutdown without the indictment. The best way is to cite it as the sources so. Owner = "Dread Pirate Roberts" cannot stand when there is indictment of him as Ulbricht. It's unsourced. It's tied to Ulbricht in sources and it's a crime. There is no source that isn't the same as the indictment and there is no way toignore the indictment. --DHeyward (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, however, Smyth's edit was clear on this: "Ross William Ulbricht, alleged by the FBI to be the owner of Silk Road and the person behind the pseudonym "Dread Pirate Roberts". --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the info box says Dread Pirate Roberts is the owner/operator of Silk Road while nearly all sources say it is Ulbricht. I don't mind listing both, and even listing DPR first as that was established before the indictment. But after indictment, that changed to Ulbricht. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There are adequate sources that the owner of Silk Road was a person known as Dread Pirate Roberts. Some journalists even communicated with him directly over Tor. See, for example, the two Forbes articles in the references. But if some news sources are now saying that Ulbricht is DPR, they are simply repeating the FBI's assertions. They are not doing their own independent fact checking on that question. – Smyth\^talk 12:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FBI agents talked with him directly over TOR as well when they received the alleged solicitation for murder. Are you asserting multiple DPR's? Why take the Forbes conversations as fact, but the FBI's as not? --DHeyward (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure one of the allegations, or perhaps averments, in the charging instrument is that Ulbricht is also known as DPR. You allege matters of fact, and DPR's identity is a matter of fact. The problem with using "alleged" is that, outside of the legal usage, it has much the same pejorative context as "purported". See WP:ALLEGED. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. WP:ALLEGED specifically separates "alleged" and "purported"; and encourages us to use the legal definition of alleged.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not alleged he is DPR. it's simply stated they are the same person. Being Ulbricht or DPR in and of themselves is not a crime and the indictment doesn't say it is. Whence "alleged" is inappropriate to use when describing the alias of Ulbricht. We only note who makes the equivalence, not that the equivalance is implitly crime. We would never say "James Bulger who is allegedly Whitey Bulger, because the alias was never alleged as a criminal. Not being accurate about the connection can be as equally harmful. The U.S. government is not obliged to prove Ulbricht is DPR therefore, it seems that no source would ever be acceptable even if Ulbricht is convicted of murder-for-hire and drug trafficking. DPR is an alias and the verdict simply won't contain the connection. It seems there is a desire to create a DPR mythology regardless of sources or outcomes. This is pur OR to separate them despite sources that state otherwise. The Silk Road article could be written, and completely sourced, without a single reference to DPR. "Ulbricht was indicted on 2 counts of murder for hire and also drug trafficking. Ulbricht allegedly solicited the murders and trafficked illegal narcotics through his control of Silk Road. The FBI identified Ulbricht as Dread Pirate Roberts, the Silk Road administrator, in charging documents." That statement is purely factual with no unnecessary insuation of guilt or association that isn't repeated in the vast majority of sources. There is no libel or defamation of any kind as it is a true reflection of the indictment and has been repeated many times in other public sources. Once you accept that statement as accurate and fair, (and I don't know of a rationale to deny it), a synopsis of Ulbricht's charges as well as the sourced connection to Silk road seems an obvious and reasonable avenue expansion. Sources have not separated Ulbricht from Silk Road ownership or control. The choices are to write DPR out of the Silk Road article and use sources attributing ownership and control was by Ulbricht or keep DPR and note that the FBI connected them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

"a synopsis of Ulbricht's charges" – is already in the article. "note that the FBI connected them" – is already in the article. So what precisely is the change you are proposing? A direct assertion that "ownership and control was by Ulbricht"? But the only source we have for that is the FBI, who are highly motivated to make him look as bad as possible. Now their account certainly sounds plausible, and I wouldn't bet on Ulbricht's chances. But he's had no opportunity to defend himself yet, as against the months of work that the FBI has put into making the strongest possible case against him. If we just repeat the FBI's assertions as factual, we're essentially letting them write the article for us. – Smyth\^talk 11:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Smyth. To claim it is "factual" we would need a citation of him saying I am DPR, or a court finding it so. The FBI stating something like this doesn't make it fact just becasue it isn't a crime. They are still highly motivated to prove it so. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. It only requires sourced attribution. "Publication X says DPR is owner of Silk Road. Publication Y says that Ulbricht is DPR." Saying we can't publish Y's account because they appear to believe the FBI. But we can publish X because it was when he was ??. It is textbook synthesis to discount Y based on some supposition being made by editors here that news accounts are based totally on biased FBI statements and a separate grand jury indictment. I'm trying to get the logic being employed here by separating them despite all the media reports: Is the FBI out to get DPR or Ulbricht? Is Ulbricht or DPR being defamed by the assertion they are the same people? Which one has been indicted for solicting murder? --DHeyward (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

By making the as-yet untried material statement that DPR is Ulbricht, the complaint alleges that DPR is Ulbricht. I don't see why this is being treated as complex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The as-yet untried material statement is Ulbricht is the owner and controller of Silk Road. As the owner has been previously identified as DPR and Ulbricht used that pseudonym, it's an alias, not a material statement. They don't have to prove he's DPR, only that he committed murder-for-hire. If it turns out that DPR is really his pet cat that he trained to type his messages using the cats DPR account - it changes nothing. They still can prove he owned the site and committed the crimes. We have reliable sources that say DPR is the owner, we have reliable sources that say Ulbricht is the owner and we have reliable sources that say Ulbricht is DPR. Source overwhelmingly state that Ulbricht is the owner of Silk Road. Any Original Research or Synthesis that is used to discount or condition those sources based purely on the speculation that the FBI is somehow corrupt or that the media is lazy is nonsense. Find a source that disputes Ulbricht is not the owner of Silk Road. If he isn't, they got awfully lucky in shutting down his website and taking he his and his clients wallets. It's simple: Our sources don't separate them. WP shouldn't separate them. Ulbricht owns and controlled Silk Road according to those sources. We don't even have to mention DPR if the association bothers some editors, but it's overwhelmingly source that Ulbricht owned and controlled Silk Road. Believing reports that DPR controlled it is evidence that Ulbricht was DPR. It's not exculpatory in any sense. Write DPR out of the article if necessary. Sources and circumstances point at Ulbricht. --DHeyward (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Find a source that disputes Ulbricht is not the owner of Silk Road." And there you have it, you are assuming guilt before the trial. The entire point of WP:CRIME is that we don't have to find a source to assume his innocence prior to trial. This is like arguing that Wikipedia should just call someone the head of the Chicago Mafia before trial because every news source agrees with the FBI's allegation that they are, and being the head of the Mafia isn't the exact charge anyways. The article is fine as stands. It cites the allegations that link the two and doesn't assume guilt. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. You are assuming Silk Road is an illegal enterprise and therefore cited ownership implies guilt. It does not. There are sources (virtually all of them) that say Ulbricht owns Silk Road. We also cite reputed leaders of Mafia organizations all the time. They are never convicted of being the head of a Mafia organization. See John A. Gotti. Please tell me where he was convicted of being the head of a Mafia crime family. Also, how ridiculous it sounds to remove all the sourced connections to the being the head the Gambino crime family. --DHeyward (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

Also, "If he isn't, they got awfully lucky in shutting down his website and taking he his and his clients wallets." WP:ORDkriegls (talk to me!) 16:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

DHeyward, I really don't get your response or position. The charging instrument makes a number of allegations, one of which is that DPR is Ulbricht are the same person. Therefore, DPR is alleged to be Ulbricht. It does not matter that a conviction could be gotten without proving this: it was still alleged. Simply because you personally consider the statement of fact to be immaterial does not make it so. The charging instrument alleges that DPR is Ulbricht, full stop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

DPR is a pseudonym. It's not "alleged". It would also never be written the way you describe it. Ulbricht use the DPR pseudonym. Ulbricht owns and runs Silk Road. Note that simply providing a website and links is not what is illegal. Wikipedia provides links to silk road without fear of being an illegal enterprise. Ulbricht allegedly used Silk Roadto traffic and profit from illegal narcotics allegedly hired men to kill people that threatened that enterprise. Forget DPR even exists as it's no longer relevant to mention DPR except as an alias of Ulbricht. It's like the name "Junior" for John A. Gotti. The article seems to state the DPR owns and runs Silk Road yet all of our sources have shifted. The sources we used to connect DPR to Silk Road are not nearly as strong as the sources used to connect Ulbricht to Silk Road yet we treat them as if they are less strong. We shouldn't be interpreting sources this way. We need to synthesizing our way out of reliably sourced information simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please try this same strategey on the John A. Gotti page and propose changing all reference that state gotti was head of the Gambino Crime Family because the FBI never convicted him of being "junior" or propose that all references that link Gotti to the name "junior" be changed to "alleged." Al Capone, though no longer living, is similar. Capone's activities were widely reported at the time. For BLP, we use verifiable sources, neutrally presented. Ulbricht is the owner of Silk Road. Ulbricht is also known by DPR. Thosed aren't "allegations" in any legal context. They are sourced and as long as we attribute the source, it is not defamation. Ulbricht's arrest was a US/World news item (8 more people were arrested around the world using data obtained from Ulbricht's website) and it is WP:WELLKNOWN that he was arrested and his website shutdown. Pretending DPR is possibly a different person despite the sources, and then incredulously listing DPR as owner of Silk Road over Ulbricht defies every policy we have with regard to RS, NPOV, CRIME, WELLKNOWN --DHeyward (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Silk Road WAS an illegal enterprise. There is literally no doubt about that. So to label someone as the owner and operator of Silk Road is to allege that they are guilty of a crime. The allegation is sourced and we are attributing the source, which is the FBI. Is the FBI a reliable source in this context? No, they are highly biased. So we do not repeat their allegation as fact. To do so WOULD potentially be defamation. – Smyth\^talk 09:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You wrote: "As laid out in the Grand Jury indictment, the direct criminal and a multititude of independant sources, Ulbricht is DPR." I don't know what you mean by "direct criminal", but the grand jury indictment is based solely on the FBI's account, and so are ALL the news stories. There are simply no "independent sources" for this allegation. The news media didn't "all of a sudden forget about defamation law", they simply reasoned that they were at no risk because they are convinced by the FBI's account and are certain of Ulbricht's guilt. That doesn't mean they have independently verified the FBI's account, and they do not claim to have done so. – Smyth\^talk 09:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the indictment makes the allegation that DPR is Ulbricht. Guilt or criminality doesn't enter into it. An allegation takes place when a legal document, such as an indictment, makes an assertion as fact. The complaint does this when it uses the phrasing "ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT, a/k/a 'Dread Pirate Roberts,' a/k/a 'DPR' . . . .", and the indictment does this when it uses the equivalent phrasing. Therefore, the indictment alleges that DPR is Ulbricht. Therefore, DPR has been alleged to be Ulbricht, and Ulbricht has been alleged to be DPR. I cannot explain this more thoroughly or in more simple terms. I have absolutely no clue what any of this other nonsense is about. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you are unaware of the difference between an allegation of a crime and a statement of identity. Identity is required for a federal indictment. "DPR" would never be indicted. Ulbrict was. It is not an allegation that he is DPR. It is an allegation that he used Silk Road for criminal purposes. That's the difference. If you do not understand, you should perhaps refrain from editing where the term "allegation" is used. As for the assertion that the press based all of their "DPR" connections on the FBI is trivial and also OR. We use the press to identify DPR as the owner based on an interview over TOR. FBI does the same thing as the press and says it's Ulbricht. The press doesn't indicate in any way that those two interviews conflict. Nor do they conclude anything different than the FBI. Why would anyone on WP discard than and conclude the press is wrong and the FBI is wrong? That's OR in its classic definition and synthesis that because there is nothing contradicting the FBI, it is therefore only the FBI's view. Note that we don't do anything like that with any other accusation. We report what the sources say, not what we wish the sources say. --DHeyward (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not saying anything new. Wikipedia's policy on people accused of crime is clear. You have convinced zero editors of your interpretation of it, and failed to convince four. Just leave it for now and let the guy have a fair trial. He will probably be convicted eventually, and then you can write as much as you like. – Smyth\^talk 11:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)DHeyward, you're out-and-out incorrect in your interpretation of the meaning of "alleged" and "allegation". I fear you've misunderstood, most likely as a result of press misuse of the term, or as a sort of hypercorrection in response to such misuse, exactly what an allegation is. And please do not pull that dismissive tone with other editors. I don't care how knowledgeable you purport to be: your persistent argument of a point that is patently incorrect based off an even perfunctory perusal of legal literature only serves to discredit any argument you make. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Why would anyone on WP discard than and conclude the press is wrong and the FBI is wrong?" (DHeyward). This might be where your confusion lies. No one is saying the Press or the FBI is wrong. We are withholding judgment and "assuming innocence until proven otherwise in a court of law". Assuming innocence until proven guilty is not the same as stating that the alleged charges are wrong. This is how the courts in the US will view these allegation, and it is how Wikipedia will view these allegations. Doing otherwise, as you are suggesting, would be equivalent to saying that it was known fact that Ted Kaczynski is the Unibomber before the trial had finished. Connecting the two amounts to "not assuming innocence until proven otherwise". Taking this stand does not mean the FBI is wrong, it means we are withholding judgment until the FBI has made its case in a court of law. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Despite DHeyward's claims to the contrary, we have reported what the sources say about the charges, but did not go into detail to prevent any BPL violations. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Deep web

The "deep web" just means content that's not indexed by search engines. Some idiot wrote a sensational and factually challeneged Business Week article claiming that "Deep Web" means Tor, but they were wrong (seriously, read that article, there are so many 'ridiculous' statements made.) It may be technically true that Tor sites are on the deep web, but then again it may 'not' be true because a Tor hidden service isn't properly part of the Internet at all. Either way, it's basically irrelevant, because "Deep Web" is a buzzword about an unrelated topic that ignorant journalists have occasionally thrown around in the wrong context. Please take it out. 209.197.146.9 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Deep web is misleading here. The deep web concept refers to search engine indexing. S.kapfer (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not incorrect to say that it is part of the deep web - many reliable sources say that it is e.g. the Sydney Morning Herald and Time. Personally I think this should be included in the article as it will help readers to understand how SR differed from typical websites. Thoughts? SmartSE (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to disagree. Being a reliable source doesn't except your staff from hiring reporters who may potentially be of simple mind, and it's careless reporting like these cases which propagate disinformation and misunderstandings. If a reliable source misuses the term "deep web", then it's not really that reliable. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Web address

The current web address in the infobox doesn't work. http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/ --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/ is the correct address, and works if one follows the appropriate instructions. - Oniscoid 13:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/ was seized by the FBI on October 2, 2013. The current Silk Road address is silkroad6ownowfk.onion - Oniscoid 22:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC) - Oniscoid 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

To save me starting a new topic, please note that via pending changes I've reverted the recent attempt at replacing the onion address with the silkroad.com address, because the cite does not mention that URL. I do not know what is going on with recent edits in that area, but it's a bad idea to associate what looks like an unconnected website with this topic's hidden service. See http://www.webutations.net/go/review/silkroad.com. For the record, my preference is to avoid including non-standard URLs such as .onion addresses but that has no bearing on my decision to reject the .com URL. -84user (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Similar sites vague

Please review my attempt at removing vagueness from the last two sentences from Silk Road (marketplace)#Similar sites. My edit summary was "be specific, not vague; hope these are what the editor meant; copyedit, but needs more". Editors should not use vague terms such as "Another" and "two other sites", especially as they had no dates attached. This made it difficult to determine what sites they intended, and I'm still unsure what was intended there. I wanted to link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch but that guideline does not include those particular phrases. Nevertheless, please give specific names and dates when adding article text. 84user (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to know how much this section should be expanded. "Darknet Markets" may be significant enough to have its own article. There have been about thirty similar sites (excluding individual vendor stores), of which approximately half are still online, although most traffic (as of this week) goes to just four of them (Silk Road 2, Agora, Pandora and Blue Sky Market). Also mention should be made of I2P sites (such as The MarketPlace, which has been the first to implement multi signature transactions instead of providing a centralised escrow service). It would be easier, though perhaps cowardly, to only give details of sites which are no longer active, thus avoiding problems with vandalism, spam, self-promotion, and opposition from those who object to illegal market places being given free publicity. - Oniscoid 16:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

9.5 Million Bitcoin

In the article it is stated that "Silk Road had collected 9.5 million Bitcoin in revenue out of 11.75 million Bitcoin in circulation.", I think the sentence is unclear since it suggests that Silk Road owned 9.5 Million BTC, while this number is only the sum of all transaction happened since its opening. Should we rewrite it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.22.248.136 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

At the least the sentence should be changed. It comes from the headline of the referenced article, "Silk Road collected 9.5 million bitcoin—and only 11.75 million exist", which is somewhat sensational. Without knowing how often bitcoins are on average recycled, it's hard to draw any conclusions. In the body of the article it says, "Obviously, this doesn’t mean that 82% of bitcoin were used on Silk Road. Over the course of its existence, the Silk Road likely recycled its earnings back into the market in exchange for more broadly recognized—and useful—currencies. Ulbricht was arrested with just 26,000 bitcoin.". Taking into account that when Silk Road 1 closed, the exchange rate of the Bitcoin dropped for a few days but didn't crash, and shortly afterwards it's value rocketed, then perhaps the sentence should be removed from the article as it doesn't clarify the significance of Silk Road to the bitcoin economy? - Oniscoid 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed that sentence and the Quartz citation completely, as I agree with both your points; it was sensationalistic, and would only be meaningful if the company had kept those coins so they were no longer recirculating. It would be like saying Walmart has $500 billion in annual revenue, compared to the $1250 billion in existence; it's true but misleading. I expanded the quote from the criminal complaint; the article previously quoted complaint for the revenue in US dollars, omitting the Bitcoin figures, and omitting that the dollar estimate was a valuation of the Bitcoins at the then-current exchange rate. Given the wild price fluctuations of Bitcoin, these sort of valuation estimates can be very misleading; three months later you could just as well say Silk Road had revenue of $10 billion at current rates, rather than $1 billion. Agyle (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Silk Road status

Numerous examples of what appears to be conflict-of-interest editing as to the online status of Silk Road have been taking place this year (2014), typically changing verb tenses from present to past ("is" to "was", "are" to "were" etc). It is likely that this is part of a campaign against Silk Road also being waged elsewhere online (eg on the social networking site Reddit, and on deep web forums such as onion site The Hub). Most vendors posting on Reddit agree that Silk Road is still by far the most active online black market despite criticisms of its reliability and security. - Oniscoid 01:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick glance at the article history looks more like it's a case of trying to decide if SR1 and SR2 are the same thing. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly some of the edits, especially the earlier ones, can be seen in the context of the discussion on whether or not the second Silk Road is a continuation of the first. However there have also been several edits a month from non-user accounts, which have consistently realtered the tenses without giving a reason, and without discussing it here on the talk page. The opening sentence of the article is "Silk Road is an online market." If editors are worried about possible confusion between SR1 and SR2, then it is easy to distinguish between them, eg "The original Silk Road was an online market closed down in 2013. Silk Road is also the name of a currently active online market."). Unless there is such clarification, or at least a discussion of any changes made which affect the current status of Silk Road, then IMO the edits would appear to be at best POV, and at worst an attempt to mislead. - Oniscoid 04:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, what COI? Are you saying the past tense editors are dark web merchants trying to get rid of competition? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Who knows? Many people and organisations are actively opposed to the continuing existence of online black markets, including politicians, police, anti-drug groups, virtual currency enthusiasts, and financial organisations. Some would no doubt justify changing a couple of tenses if it furthered their agenda. Given the huge increase in tax-free profits that would flow their way should SR be thought dead, it's conceivable that market operators and their supporters might also stoop so low as to falsify a wp article. - Oniscoid 05:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC) - Oniscoid 05:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC) - Oniscoid 05:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Specific allegations can be investigated. Agyle (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I've no specific allegations, but strong enough suspicions to feel it was worth raising as a probable explanation. To satisfy my own curiosity I'll go through past edits and see if a pattern emerges. - Oniscoid 08:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Silk Road vs Silk Road 2

The article is unclear whether its subject is the orginal Silk Road marketplace only, or whether it also includes as its subject the new Silk Road (Silk Road 2). This leads to apparent contradictions. For example the first sentence of the article is, "Silk Road is an online black market", which uses the present tense and obviously refers to Silk Road 2. Whereas the summary box states, "Online[4][5], but seized by FBI", which refers to the original Silk Road (unless this is new information about Silk Road 2, in which case a reference is needed). Either Silk Road 2 should have its own wp page, or this article should treat Silk Road as a trading name, and be the appropriate page for information on both past and present versions of Silk Road. If the latter, then the article edit of 13th December 2013 to the "Current status" needs reverting. Of course there is also the possibility that the change to the "Current status" was a deliberate attempt to suppress details of the continued operations of Silk Road appearing on wp (as happened with the reincarnation of the TheBox torrent site). - Oniscoid 20:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC) - Oniscoid 20:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Again there has been a revision which confuses the online status of Silk Road (SR). The first sentence now reads "Silk Road was an online black market." The second sentence reads "It is operated as a Tor hidden service...". The original SR was closed down. SR reopened a month later with a new admin who inherited the first admin's user name "DPR". It has the same user interface, the same logo, significant continuity of staff, and caters to the same community of users. For convenience the current SR is sometimes referred to as "Silk Road 2" (SR2). It is accepted by all the vendors and buyers who use it as the direct descendent of the original SR. It is in effect the same organisation with a new address and a new CEO. I suggest that until SR2 has its own wp page, "Silk Road" refers to the entity Silk Road (and its associated forum) as understood by both the original and current users and staff of SR, and therefore includes SR2. - Oniscoid 14:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC) - Oniscoid 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: the URL in the summary box currently points to SR2, which is online and is being used for trading, despite access difficulty caused by DDoS attacks. - Oniscoid 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Four article edits were made earlier today by an unknown editor who has made no other wp contributions and has ignored the points I've made above. Hmm... - Oniscoid 22:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unindent. I'm just passing by, but it's clear the lede and body need editing to be consistent. We could use this Forbes article as a cite; it starts "The resurrection of the popular Silk Road drug website known as “Silk Road 2.0″. Maybe the lede could temporarily start "Silk Road was an online black market closed in October 2013. Silk Road 2.0 is its apparent resurrection ...", but that's clunky. Hopefully recent news coverage will attract editors with better ideas at improvement. -84user (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that the problem still exists, although now the opening sentence says Silk Road "was" a marketplace, and the infobox status says the site is "Online". Both flip-flop, but a website is usually listed as "Online", and the opening has been using "was" for most of the past week. My suggestion would be to eliminate the continual ambiguity in both location by explaining the situation explicitly, along the lines of 84user's suggestion although I dislike “apparent resurrection” unless reliable sources are really casting doubt. For example, instead of saying it "is a marketplace" or "was a marketplace", say something like "The Silk Road was an online marketplace which was closed in October 2013, and relaunched as Silk Road 2.0 the following month." Just because there's a later section that discusses Silk Road 2 doesn't mean the lede can't mention it as well. For the infobox, I would cram succinct information reflecting both sites, as is currently done with the launch date (in the infobox, it lists the original launch date, then says "relaunched" with a second date). Agyle (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Now we have the infobox stating its currently online but the body text using past tense. In a functional sense it has returned so I don't think past tense is appropriate. This should change if another page for SR2 is created. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also SR2 has been back for a couple of days since the alleged hack. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any need to increment a version number each time the Silk Road has an apparent leadership or URL change. The current site identifies as "Silk Road" and its article should reflect that. It should be sufficient to note that, like other criminal enterprises, the Silk Road has proven resilient against law enforcement seizures and arrests. Ldecoursey (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How much does self-identification matter in this case? As far as I could tell the only reason continuity exists between SR1 and SR2 was because they share the same staff. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While it's an unusual case, this wasn't just a leadership or URL change. The original Silk Road organization ceased to exist, it servers and money were seized, its customer accounts closed. Silk Road 2.0 launched over a month later at a new address, using the same software (apparently) and some of the same staff (apparently), and new customer accounts (I think...they'd at least have been emptied of funds). Most news sources seem to treat SR2 as a different entity (website, organization, whatever you want to call it). The fact that the operators chose a new name may have influenced that, but it does seem like the prevailing view from reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It's okay to note that the relaunched site was informally dubbed "Silk Road 2.0" by media and others during the timeframe when both iterations were concurrently generating news coverage, as a way to distinguish the two, but actually the marketplace is branded just as "Silk Road", not as "Silk Road 2.0" and it is what people refer to when talking about "Silk Road" in the present tense. The current operation's ownership of the "Silk Road" brand will only solidify over time. I say let's make the currently-operating site the focal point of the "Silk Road" article and, when clarification is needed, refer to the earlier site as the "pre-seizure" or "1.0-era" site.

The idea that the current marketplace should be forked to a "Silk Road 2.0" article, and that the "Silk Road" article should show that the site is defunct doesn't make sense to me. Yes there was a hiatus after the seizure, but during this time many of the same staff, vendors and buyers who had been locked out were feverishly planning and executing the relaunch, often publicly through the site's forums. They took the same brand and are currently running with it.

The Ulbrict case and US shuttering of the site will remain noteworthy elements of the Silk Road history, and it's fair that these events continue to be reflected in wp. I am of the opinion that there is sufficient continuity that the two site iterations can actually be dealt with as a single thing, but regardless, the current site should definitely be the main thrust of the "Silk Road" article, not a footnote. 173.84.87.67 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"Dread Pirate Roberts" comes from the film "The Princess Bride", the name being used by a succession of pirate captains, each in turn passing it on to a successor who hired a new crew and continued the piracy without loss of notoriety. In other words, it was intended from the start that Silk Road should be continued by others as necessitated by circumstance. To have "Silk Road" refer only to a specific incarnation contradicts one of the premises on which Silk Road was built and on which it continues to operate. One might argue about the degree of continuity and the relative merits of SR1 and SR2, but as the actual succession is not in dispute, Silk Road has to refer to both SR1 and SR2. - Oniscoid 09:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How it works/worked

The article explains that Silk Road offers protection from monitoring of browsing but does not otherwise explain how and to what extent it makes illegal transactions safer. That would be a useful addition to the article.Bill (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not defunct

@David Hedlund: As these articles demonstrate, the site is still active and not defunct. SmartSE (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Censorship

I call out ElectricWombat to explain why it's acceptable to display the URL, as an actual link, for Yahoo, Google, etc. but Wikipedia prefers to censor the URL of this website. Is Wikipedia biased?

http://i.imgur.com/FFF9p0Q.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:9480:EF:5D76:6DDA:25B0:EE9 (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand or agree with this either and have created a report here for discussion. Thanks. -Frazzydee|✍ 22:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

merged content from "Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)"

Merged due to unambiguous conflict with BLP policy. ( [1]) zzz (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on address, name, etc.?

I see some discussion and several reverts, but is there a consensus that:

1. The address specified by the Business Insider article should be given in the infobox?
2. Silk Road and the new Silk Road should be treated as the same subject such that the "Current status" part of the infobox should say "Online"?

It seems like there are other unresolved issues, but maybe I'm imagining things. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Prematurely Accused of Crime

This article Prematurely Accuses the owner of the web site of the crime of conspiracy - when the article explains he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. The term "co-conspirator" is prejudicial to him getting a fair trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.156.221 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This was contained within two paragraphs of text that was inserted verbatim from an FBI press release. The much longer release of course spelled out that these are allegations and the accused is innocent until proven guilty, etc., but we lost that when the text was pasted here. I have removed those two paragraphs but if another editor wants to mine the release for useful info, it is here: http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2014/operator-of-silk-road-2.0-website-charged-in-manhattan-federal-court Ivanvector (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like there's a Silk Road 3

Since the article currently links to the seized Silk Road 2, I think it's time to replace it now that there seems to be a successor according to this article on Gizmodo (it says the new link is qxvfcavhse45ckpw.onion but it redirects to reloadedudjtjvxr.onion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.144.6.32 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw that too, but there seems to be no continuity. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Updating the revenue figures in the 'Sales' section

The Sales section currently quotes from an fbi report the following numbers:

"From February 6, 2011 to July 23, 2013 there were approximately 1,229,465 transactions completed on the site. The total revenue generated from these sales was 9,519,664 Bitcoins, and the total commissions collected by Silk Road from the sales amounted to 614,305 Bitcoins. These figures are equivalent to roughly $1.2 billion in revenue and $79.8 million in commissions, at current Bitcoin exchange rates..."

Evidence at trial though, as reported by nytimes and bloomberg put the figure at $213 million not $1.2 billion.

The text of the article isn't false, it correctly quotes the FBI, but i think it would more be correct to quote these sources instead as there is a higher requirement of truth for court proceedings vs fbi press statements. I couldn't think of a good way to reword that section and fit it in though, any ideas?

2601:9:700:D2A:30F2:9F6D:442D:B986 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe both numbers are right? calculated at different points in time so different exchange rates. --Jeremyb (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My thought as well: the Bitcoin exchange rate fluctuates rapidly. Perhaps the new figure took the then-exchange rates into account? —ajf (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Delayed sentencing

The guys sentencing has been delayed until 29th May (minimum). The site still mentions 15th May it is GOING to happen (future tense). Someone should update. I don't know how.

Done.--Bernie44 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources about DPR

• Greenberg, Andy. "Meet The Dread Pirate Roberts, The Man Behind Booming Black Market Drug Website Silk Road." Forbes. August 14, 2003.
• Greenberg, Andy. "An Interview With A Digital Drug Lord: The Silk Road's Dread Pirate Roberts (Q&A)." Forbes. August 14, 2003.
• Borders, Max. "Did Dread Pirate Roberts Deserve a Life Sentence?" (Archive) (Opinion). Newsweek. June 1, 2015.
• Bertrand, Natasha. "Eerie diary entries written by the Silk Road founder who just got a life sentence." Business Insider. May 29, 2015.
• Ulbricht's master's degree thesis (Archive)

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Now that DPR has been convicted and sentenced to life, do these sources warrant a spinout article on DPR the person? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: The main issue I had with coverage of Ulbricht was that he had not yet been convicted but we covered him extensively here and at Ross William Ulbricht. A WP:BLPCRIME issue. When he was convicted, of course, that concern went away. So the other hump to get over is WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." -- This seems like an existing article that could incorporate the material. "Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." -- I'm content to defer to other people's judgment on this. Again, though, my big concern was BLPCRIME. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this at the Notice Board back in January (see here). The consensus, if I read it correctly, was that Ulbricht should have his own article if he is convicted. He was convicted. I think the article exists already behind the redirect. Chisme (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, I would not say there was such a consensus, but I guess I can see where it would be confusing since we were talking about Ulbricht as a stand-alone article at the same time as talking about his role in the Silk Road article. The two of us were the only ones involved in that thread, and I began it by mentioning WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:CRIME, as above (the latter being a notability standard), so if anything my position should be taken as disagreeing with you.

But to reinforce what I said above, the major element of that thread -- and my larger concern at the time -- was WP:BLPCRIME. Hence being at WP:BLPN. The BLP issues are solved by the conviction, and that's likely why nobody else saw the need to participate in the thread at that point. Notability is still an issue because it doesn't seem like there's so much to say about Ulbricht that it would overwhelm this article (which is, more or less, what's required to spin it off per WP:CRIME).

As I said, I'll defer to those of you who have been working more closely on this article than I have to make that determination. I just don't want it to be on the basis of the idea that there is a pre-existing consensus to do so. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There ought to be a standalone article about Ulbricht in my opinion. He is notorious enough, the subject of many magazine articles and a documentary. He falls under both criteria: He is "a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities," and "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Just my opinion. Chisme (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you and WhisperToMe are confident, then in the absence of any other dissenting voices I say go for it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Based on recent developments, is it okay if I recreate "Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:WhisperToMe, should be OK. I've changed the full to PC for now to see how it goes. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Re-established the article WhisperToMe (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

NYT source missing?

This New York Times link is now dead.

• [2]

The Wayback Machine purports to have it, but for some reason, it will not pull it. Does anyone know how an archived copy might be found? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's actually an Associated Press story rather than NYT. I think this is the same story at USA Today. SmartSE (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Phil 115 Article Evaluation

I believe that this article is very throughly written using good sources. The only thing I found distracting was the section about similar sites and believe that it could be moved to the see also section. I feel as though there is not very much missing from this article or very much that can be improved until new news comes out. I find this to be a very interesting topic and have enjoyed reviewing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanmgold (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there more information about their book club? I also find it hard to believe that there were so few arrests connected to the Silk Road.Evanmgold (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

'The Silk Road' vs 'Silk Road'

Does anyone know what the most correct or recommended way of referring to the site is? Deku-shrub (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

imo "Silk Road" as in their logo. Edit: "t/The Silk Road" has a connotation of referring to the first and most popular Silk Road with just "Silk Road" having a connotation of also referring to its successors (sometimes even sites with other names such as Agora and Evolution) - but I guess that's irrelevant as on Wikipedia "Silk Road" always refers to the first one... --Fixuture (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It was called "Silk Road" by staff and users. Similarly, its current abbreviation is always "SR1", not "the SR1" nor "The SR1". Similarly its successor was called "Silk Road 2" ("SR2"). - Oniscoid 21:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In my prose on early darknet markets I use 'The Silk Road' a number of times, short for 'The Silk Road site'. Is this stylistically incorrect? Deku-shrub (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it similar to Name of Ukraine. Did Ross/DPR ever comment on this matter I wonder? Deku-shrub (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tired of getting ripped need help

TheMan01 (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Silk Road (marketplace). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605064844/http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3984.msg57086 to http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3984.msg57086
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://dkn255hz262ypmii.tor2web.org/index.php?topic=360.msg2059
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220003018/https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint.pdf to https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/UlbrichtCriminalComplaint.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Second .onion address is NOT defunct

The address silkroad7rn2puhj.onion is not defunct, after having checked it today (1st of March, 2017). I haven't edited it because I'm not sure why it was set as defunct, possibly because it was taken down and was put back online (which seems strange because, according to this article it was taken down by the FBI and Europol). If somebody could verify all this and find out why it is back online that would be great, thank you all.

Update - I noticed that is actually Silk Road 3.1, however it is still using the same url as 2.0 and contradicts the part in this article that states that it was shut down due to lack of funds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danteruss (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

number of listings from October 2014?

An anonymous user just removed this text:

In October 2014, there were 13,756 listings for drugs, grouped under the headings stimulants, psychedelics, prescription, precursors, other, opioids, ecstasy, dissociatives, and steroids/PEDs.

This is indeed strange, as October 2014 was after it was shut down. I would assume it was just a typo, but none of the sources we cite for that claim even post-date October 2013. A quick search for the figure returns a whole lot of sources that cite it, typically with the 2014 date. We could cite some of those, but looking at the dates of those sources, it seems like there's the potential for some WP:Citogenesis... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)