428:
410:
438:
318:
297:
328:
814:
249:
266:
190:
516:. 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? --—
1065:
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
1049:
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
860:
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
Knowledge (XXG) page is the best on the
633:
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
1446:
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
967:
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
972:
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
1492:
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
1026:
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
690:
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.
1304:, 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.
762:
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.
1618:
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.
1089:
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
1579:
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. —
1105:
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.
730:
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.
1136:
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
1413:, the findings may be viewed as..." Knowledge (XXG)'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.
1229:"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."
1427:
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
558:
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.
1519:, 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?
153:
551:
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.
1050:
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.
637:
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?
1034:, 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?
777:
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:
1160:
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!
991:
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?
1070:, 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).
392:
1387:
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.
1011:
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
676:
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.
1703:
1307:
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
358:
354:
748:
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.
1726:
350:
590:
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.
241:
147:
784:. 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.
1181:"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.
629:
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
1777:
382:
977:- 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?
1558:"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.
1243:
340:
1792:
1782:
1772:
484:
79:
1637:. 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.
726:"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"
1560:
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
490:
1767:
1478:
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. —
1447:
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). —
237:
44:
1665:
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
1556:, only three - Doxbin, Pink Meth and "Cannabis Road Forums" have cites other than Nik Cubrilovic. These are covered by the statement in the article
345:
302:
85:
779:
1797:
1787:
460:
1315:
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.
1247:
1238:
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
1745:
1494:
30:
911:
I agree Forbes contradicts the source. I'm taking the forbes citation for the notability and the source article for the accurate figures
1251:
1707:
1227:"Warrants inclusion" is kind of vague. Is this sentence, for which it is currently used in the article, the major point of contention:
576:
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.
1239:
99:
659:
but it's by a completely different journalist to the original, possibly unaware that the BBC has already presented it's own theory.
1511:
Of course people care about the other ones, that's why they have their own citations because they have their own notable coverage.
451:
415:
104:
20:
1730:
1008:
168:
74:
1633:
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
277:
135:
65:
1333:
questioning whether you've read the research, I'm going to break down simple the introductory paragraph and put it here:
531:
Good point. Law enforcement is pretty much irrelevant to Tor services. I tend to agree with you, I'll remove it for now.
513:
1255:
877:
129:
861:
net, because of all the contradictions around. Just paraphrase the information as contradictory, don't remove it.
109:
1749:
283:
265:
125:
649:
642:
224:
973:
actually less than that.'" So, who's right, then? The BBC, countless other news orgs, the Tor project and
1030:
describes him as "Australia-based blogger Nik Cubrilovic" - confidence-inspiring. And it goes on to say, "
175:
55:
459:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
205:
1432:
still has to go, since it's either unsourced, or sourced to Nik Cubrilovic's unverified personal blog.
1406:
1297:
1028:
70:
1212:
warrants inclusion or not, I think it's best we get some additional editors to weigh in at this point
437:
427:
409:
1656:
1624:
1524:
1378:
1217:
1166:
1126:
1095:
1055:
1016:
944:
916:
866:
803:
768:
738:
696:
666:
1674:
1642:
1603:
1582:
1569:
1502:
1480:
1469:
1449:
1437:
1418:
1396:
1366:
1320:
1273:
1260:
1186:
1150:
1111:
1075:
1039:
997:
982:
930:
902:
884:
824:
789:
753:
720:
681:
595:
581:
536:
518:
161:
220:
1634:
1561:
1142:
189:
555:
The second paragraph is original research about the relative ineffectiveness of the operation.
141:
1429:
1291:
566:
317:
296:
229:
51:
24:
1141:
of Operation Onymous, since there's precisely zero evidence that any such methods were used (
1009:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Nik+Cubrilovic
1286:(presumably the same guy), since when the account has been dormant. Then it was expanded by
925:
No, the WP article! The previous sentence in fact. Which is well-sourced, from multiple RS.
1652:
1620:
1520:
1374:
1287:
1283:
1213:
1174:
1162:
1122:
1091:
1051:
1012:
940:
912:
862:
799:
764:
734:
692:
662:
652:"Could be BBC misunderstanding things. That does happen pretty regularly." they suggest.
443:
1670:
1638:
1599:
1565:
1498:
1465:
1433:
1414:
1392:
1316:
1203:
1182:
1146:
1107:
1071:
1035:
993:
978:
926:
898:
880:
849:
820:
785:
749:
715:
677:
612:
591:
577:
532:
1388:
1067:
1761:
1300:
describes Cubrilovic as "Australia-based blogger Nik Cubrilovic", and follows with "
1121:
I have undone this, reimplementing your other changes so as not to be antagonistic.
210:
879:
Forbes cites the same source saying "around 50 actual sites were knocked offline."
562:
1312:
1308:
961:
939:
Added dates to the prose to better illustrate the changing figures the time line
782:
656:
622:
1145:). Just another case of totally unencyclopaedic, unverifiable self-advertising.
1085:
I'm concerned you're not reading the research here. Please read just this page.
327:
1354:
1209:
1178:
1086:
433:
333:
323:
855:
1516:
1360:
Finally of course, Nik himself who often writes and consults on such matters
200:
1753:
1734:
1711:
1678:
1660:
1646:
1628:
1607:
1589:
1573:
1528:
1506:
1487:
1473:
1456:
1441:
1422:
1400:
1382:
1324:
1267:
1221:
1190:
1154:
1130:
1115:
1099:
1079:
1059:
1043:
1020:
1001:
986:
948:
934:
920:
906:
888:
870:
828:
807:
793:
772:
757:
742:
700:
685:
670:
599:
585:
570:
540:
525:
456:
645:
about that quote, they seem to moderately support the BBC's conclusions
1595:
1512:
1313:"According to Australian blogger and journalist Nik Cubrilovic ..."
1697:
1340:
1336:* @1mp0ster, @lamoustache - expert researchers in dark web matters
1357:
definitive underground site guide and source of inside reporting
721:
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/operation-onymous-dark-web-arrests/
618:
259:
184:
15:
1177:, I have no idea why you are calling what is basically just
247:
1363:
Combined with the various citations posted previously by
1347:
455:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1615:
1553:
1462:
1279:
1651:
Please move things about before removing them then :p
1007:
Nik Cubrilovic is a respected researcher and reporter
240:. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
160:
1391:
doesn't have coach-and-four-horse sized exemptions.
242:
Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Onymous
174:
489:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1278:.The sentence "Research published later ..." was
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
965:
724:
627:
1311:In this case, we'd have to say something like
854:I don't agree with your removal of this link:
512:Thoughts on how to incorporate this page into
238:Knowledge (XXG):Recent additions/2014/December
1208:and I are close to edit warring over whether
8:
1309:"According to a team of researchers at ..."
1087:https://www.nikcub.com/posts/onymous-part1/
367:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law Enforcement
263:
856:https://www.nikcub.com/posts/onymous-part1
404:
291:
213:). The text of the entry was as follows:
223:Silk Road 3.0 appeared only hours after
1778:Mid-importance Law enforcement articles
1704:2405:ACC0:1100:9B75:4907:9BD6:5608:C020
1350:- darknet market analyst extraordinaire
406:
293:
248:
1228:
1768:Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles
968:individual services that were seized.
236:A record of the entry may be seen at
7:
1793:Unknown-importance Internet articles
1783:WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
1773:Start-Class Law enforcement articles
469:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Internet
449:This article is within the scope of
370:Template:WikiProject Law Enforcement
1258:all picked up Cubrilovic's work. —
282:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1594:The only one with a Wp article is
1430:Operation_Onymous#Seized_site_list
1292:Operation_Onymous#Seized_site_list
643:discussion on the Tor mailing list
14:
1727:2A00:5400:F002:CDDD:1:2:CFCF:EC67
781:- probably not RS but still; and
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
812:
436:
426:
408:
326:
316:
295:
264:
188:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
387:This article has been rated as
975:the FBI themselves and Europol
227:had been shut down as part of
199:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1:
1798:WikiProject Internet articles
1788:Start-Class Internet articles
1735:17:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
1339:* The creator of the popular
586:17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
571:08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
541:14:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
526:14:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
472:Template:WikiProject Internet
463:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1373:There is no better research
600:17:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
514:Template:Tor hidden services
209:column on 11 December 2014 (
1679:15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1661:14:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1647:14:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1629:14:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1608:14:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1590:14:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1574:14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1529:13:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1507:02:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1495:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1488:01:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1474:00:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1457:14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
1442:17:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1423:12:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1401:11:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1383:11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1325:07:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1268:00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1222:23:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1191:08:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
1155:21:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1131:23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1116:20:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1100:23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1080:20:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1060:23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1044:19:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1021:19:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1002:19:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
987:18:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
949:18:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
935:18:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
921:18:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
907:18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
889:18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
871:18:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
829:15:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
808:15:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
794:15:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
773:15:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
758:15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
743:15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
701:15:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
686:14:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
671:14:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
346:WikiProject Law Enforcement
339:This article is within the
1814:
1754:15:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
491:project's importance scale
1712:05:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
1669:summarises his findings.
1411:If corroborated by others
1302:If corroborated by others
1210:Nik Cubrilovic's research
1032:If corroborated by others
893:Btw, I meant contradicts
488:
421:
386:
311:
290:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1461:All right then, cheers.
1405:As I pointed out above,
373:Law enforcement articles
1196:Dispute over key source
970:
728:
657:does a follow up piece
631:
623:technical breakthrough
508:Hidden services navbox
272:This article is rated
253:
75:avoid personal attacks
1348:http://www.gwern.net/
276:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
251:
100:Neutral point of view
452:WikiProject Internet
105:No original research
1722:Dkdndndodnd dldjdb
1179:a list of websites
709:Europoll statement
278:content assessment
254:
221:online marketplace
86:dispute resolution
47:
1744:free many please
1564:in this article.
876:Well, any ideas?
505:
504:
501:
500:
497:
496:
475:Internet articles
403:
402:
399:
398:
258:
257:
230:Operation Onymous
197:Operation Onymous
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
25:Operation Onymous
1805:
1587:
1585:
1559:
1485:
1483:
1454:
1452:
1370:
1314:
1310:
1276:
1265:
1263:
1207:
960:The BBC article
853:
816:
815:
719:
621:source cited a '
616:
523:
521:
477:
476:
473:
470:
467:
446:
441:
440:
430:
423:
422:
412:
405:
393:importance scale
375:
374:
371:
368:
365:
336:
331:
330:
320:
313:
312:
307:
299:
292:
275:
269:
268:
260:
250:
192:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1813:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1758:
1757:
1742:
1720:
1701:
1693:
1583:
1581:
1557:
1481:
1479:
1450:
1448:
1364:
1284:User:Cubrilovic
1274:
1261:
1259:
1234:If so, I would
1201:
1198:
847:
845:
813:
713:
711:
610:
608:
549:
519:
517:
510:
474:
471:
468:
465:
464:
444:Internet portal
442:
435:
372:
369:
366:
364:Law Enforcement
363:
362:
332:
325:
305:
303:Law Enforcement
273:
252:Knowledge (XXG)
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1811:
1809:
1801:
1800:
1795:
1790:
1785:
1780:
1775:
1770:
1760:
1759:
1746:116.58.200.181
1741:
1738:
1719:
1716:
1694:
1692:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1584:Rhododendrites
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1482:Rhododendrites
1451:Rhododendrites
1425:
1403:
1371:
1367:Rhododendrites
1361:
1358:
1351:
1344:
1337:
1305:
1295:
1275:Rhododendrites
1262:Rhododendrites
1232:
1197:
1194:
1171:
1170:
1134:
1133:
1103:
1102:
1063:
1062:
1024:
1023:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
891:
844:
843:Contradictions
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
710:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
607:
604:
603:
602:
588:
548:
545:
544:
543:
520:Rhododendrites
509:
506:
503:
502:
499:
498:
495:
494:
487:
481:
480:
478:
461:the discussion
448:
447:
431:
419:
418:
413:
401:
400:
397:
396:
389:Mid-importance
385:
379:
378:
376:
338:
337:
321:
309:
308:
306:Mid‑importance
300:
288:
287:
281:
270:
256:
255:
245:
235:
234:
193:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1810:
1799:
1796:
1794:
1791:
1789:
1786:
1784:
1781:
1779:
1776:
1774:
1771:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1763:
1756:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1739:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1723:
1717:
1715:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1690:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1614:You yourself
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1586:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1555:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1484:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1453:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1426:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1343:onion indexer
1342:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1264:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1205:
1195:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1168:
1164:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:actual events
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:article, per
1061:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
989:
988:
984:
980:
976:
969:
964:
962:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
858:
857:
851:
842:
830:
826:
822:
819:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
798:How's it now
797:
796:
795:
791:
787:
783:
780:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
722:
717:
708:
702:
698:
694:
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
660:
658:
653:
651:
646:
644:
639:
635:
630:
626:
624:
620:
614:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
563:Thomas Levine
560:
556:
553:
547:Effectiveness
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
522:
515:
507:
492:
486:
483:
482:
479:
462:
458:
454:
453:
445:
439:
434:
432:
429:
425:
424:
420:
417:
414:
411:
407:
394:
390:
384:
381:
380:
377:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
342:
335:
329:
324:
322:
319:
315:
314:
310:
304:
301:
298:
294:
289:
285:
279:
271:
267:
262:
261:
246:
243:
239:
232:
231:
226:
225:Silk Road 2.0
222:
219:... that the
218:
215:
214:
212:
208:
207:
202:
198:
194:
191:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1743:
1724:
1721:
1702:
1696:
1666:
1551:
1410:
1330:
1301:
1235:
1199:
1172:
1138:
1135:
1104:
1064:
1031:
1025:
990:
974:
971:
966:
959:
894:
859:
846:
817:
733:
729:
725:
712:
661:
655:Now the BBC
654:
647:
640:
636:
632:
628:
609:
561:
557:
554:
550:
511:
450:
388:
344:
284:WikiProjects
228:
217:Did you know
216:
206:Did you know
204:
196:
195:A fact from
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
895:the article
274:Start-class
211:check views
148:free images
31:not a forum
1762:Categories
1691:hello I am
1653:Deku-shrub
1621:Deku-shrub
1521:Deku-shrub
1463:It's done.
1375:Deku-shrub
1355:DeepDotWeb
1329:Since I'm
1288:Deku-shrub
1252:SCMagazine
1248:TechCrunch
1214:Deku-shrub
1175:Deku-shrub
1163:Deku-shrub
1123:Deku-shrub
1092:Deku-shrub
1052:Deku-shrub
1013:Deku-shrub
941:Deku-shrub
913:Deku-shrub
863:Deku-shrub
800:Deku-shrub
765:Deku-shrub
735:Deku-shrub
693:Deku-shrub
663:Deku-shrub
606:BBC Source
334:Law portal
1725:Dndkdjdr
1554:your list
1517:Pink Meth
1204:Signedzzz
850:Signedzzz
716:Signedzzz
634:the BBC.
613:Signedzzz
349:. Please
201:Main Page
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1718:Dark web
1695:join me
1635:WP:UNDUE
1409:stated "
1272:Thanks,
1244:Tripwire
1143:WP:UNDUE
466:Internet
457:Internet
416:Internet
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1616:removed
1240:Gizmodo
1236:Support
650:another
648:Here's
641:Here's
391:on the
343:of the
203:in the
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1714:22354
1596:Doxbin
1513:Doxbin
1254:, and
1200:Since
359:Assess
357:, and
355:Create
280:scale.
126:Google
1562:undue
1407:Wired
1341:Ahmia
1331:still
1298:Wired
1290:into
1280:added
963:says
341:scope
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1750:talk
1731:talk
1708:talk
1698:Bold
1675:talk
1657:talk
1643:talk
1625:talk
1604:talk
1570:talk
1525:talk
1503:talk
1470:talk
1438:talk
1419:talk
1397:talk
1389:WP:V
1379:talk
1321:talk
1256:Vice
1218:talk
1187:talk
1167:talk
1151:talk
1127:talk
1112:talk
1096:talk
1076:talk
1068:WP:V
1056:talk
1040:talk
1017:talk
998:talk
983:talk
945:talk
931:talk
917:talk
903:talk
885:talk
867:talk
825:talk
818:Like
804:talk
790:talk
769:talk
754:talk
739:talk
697:talk
682:talk
667:talk
596:talk
582:talk
567:talk
537:talk
351:Join
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1740:New
1671:zzz
1639:zzz
1600:zzz
1588:\\
1566:zzz
1552:In
1499:zzz
1486:\\
1466:zzz
1455:\\
1434:zzz
1415:zzz
1393:zzz
1317:zzz
1282:by
1266:\\
1183:zzz
1147:zzz
1108:zzz
1072:zzz
1036:zzz
994:zzz
979:zzz
927:zzz
899:zzz
881:zzz
821:zzz
786:zzz
750:zzz
678:zzz
619:BBC
592:zzz
578:zzz
533:zzz
524:\\
485:???
383:Mid
176:TWL
1764::
1752:)
1733:)
1710:)
1677:)
1667:he
1659:)
1645:)
1627:)
1606:)
1598:.
1572:)
1527:)
1515:,
1505:)
1497:.
1472:)
1440:)
1421:)
1399:)
1381:)
1353:*
1346:*
1323:)
1250:,
1246:,
1242:,
1220:)
1189:)
1153:)
1129:)
1114:)
1098:)
1078:)
1058:)
1042:)
1019:)
1000:)
985:)
947:)
933:)
919:)
905:)
897:.
887:)
869:)
827:)
806:)
792:)
771:)
756:)
741:)
699:)
684:)
669:)
625:'
617:A
598:)
584:)
569:)
539:)
353:,
156:)
54:;
1748:(
1729:(
1706:(
1673:(
1655:(
1641:(
1623:(
1602:(
1568:(
1523:(
1501:(
1468:(
1436:(
1417:(
1395:(
1377:(
1369::
1365:@
1319:(
1294:.
1231:?
1216:(
1206::
1202:@
1185:(
1173:@
1169:)
1165:(
1149:(
1125:(
1110:(
1094:(
1074:(
1054:(
1038:(
1015:(
996:(
981:(
943:(
929:(
915:(
901:(
883:(
865:(
852::
848:@
823:(
802:(
788:(
767:(
752:(
737:(
718::
714:@
695:(
680:(
665:(
615::
611:@
594:(
580:(
565:(
535:(
493:.
395:.
361:.
286::
244:.
233:?
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
