Talk:Doxbin (darknet)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Colloquial language

Please see the edit summary of these two edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doxbin&diff=847643695&oldid=846236822&diffmode=source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doxbin&diff=848818171&oldid=848817335&diffmode=source

I am specifically referring to the following words/sentences; emphasis mine:

  • code-snippets and other stuff.
  • It is available on the clearweb
  • However, they won't remove a dox at the first sign of a random complaint from some angry guy.
  • He told in an interview

I am also unhappy about the addition of an official "URL" in place of the following HTML comment:

  • <!--I looked around everywhere and found 10 different doxbin addresses, none supported by reliable sources.-->

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doxbin is not "permanently down"

https://bit(dot)ly/3mQJNis doxbin currently is under doxbin(dot)to, the doxbin(dot)org domain should be back up in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.49.112.248 (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be re-organised to mention about the many "doxbin" sites that have been around post Operation Onymous. I've been more or less trying to plan out a "rewrite" of the Doxbin article in my sandbox over at User:MillerLeut/sandbox/Doxbin, making mention of the more commonly known ".org" successor as well as some more history during the time of the original doxbin that was ran by nachash. MillerLeut (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to remedy a similar problem with the AlphaBay article. One article that does manage it well is Silk Road (marketplace). Here's an RS for an update to article too. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

Hi Vastcast. Sorry, but I had to undo the changes you made (for now). Wikipedia articles can only be based on what's written in reliable, independent sources. It does look like there's a new/revived Doxbin (I've seen mention of it several times now), but we'd need reliable sources to report on it before updating it here (and then cite those sources in the article). Especially in the world of Tor/onion sites, there are so many examples of hijacking, use of the same name, etc., so we wait until things get coverage by publications we can count on to do some fact-checking, etc. Do we have good documentation about whether this is the same site as the original, same operators, or just the same name? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doxbin Onion vs New Clearnet Site

For now, can this article be for details only relating to the now defunct onion doxbin site? The doxbin[dot]com owners have specified that the sites are not linked. Perhaps a new article should be made for the new clearnet doxbin site? M4sugared (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M4sugared. I got to admit, I know next to nothing about any of this, but this is the second time I've seen someone bring this up recently? Someone else has already tried to create a new article for the new website, as I saw it in the New Page Patrol Feed. The gist is that Wikipedia articles need to be considered notable under our standards for inclusion. So in this case, there needs to be three different reliable sources that discuss this new website in-depth (e.g. beyond mentioning that it exists) and are independant of it (e.g. not a primary source, like the website itself). Does that help clarify things for you? Sometimes stuff like this becomes more notable over time. Clovermoss (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thank you. Right now, Doxbin (the clearnet one, aka the one you can visit in a normal browser) has few reliable sources. The only reliable sources are articles that relate to the "Lapsus" doxxing. I'd even consider deleting the "Database Leak" leak section in this article to be deleted since it is all cited from one source (and most of the materials in the section don't even come from the source, they are quotes from the website's so-called owners). M4sugared (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, then! You seem to understand this a lot better than I do. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me or at the Teahouse. Clovermoss (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the tips, have a nice rest of your day/night. M4sugared (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article undermines Wikipedia's values

"Doxbin" is a pastebin with community members who might be "far-right"; however, Doxbin is not far-right itself. Also there is much irrelevant info with questionable sources that I deleted. And as stated numerous times before, this wiki was meant to be about the hidden service with other owners. Doxbin.com has no affiliation with the shut-down version. The article now has (unreliable) info of BOTH the Onion service and the clearnet service; the info isn't even specifying about which service it's about. 84.196.39.52 (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If all the users of the website are far-right, including the owner, then the website itself is far-right. They constantly use racial slurs, dox journalists who they think are "Antifa" which aligns with the far-right's broader goals of stochastic terrorism, and have a "hall of autism" which is ableist eugenicist rhetoric used by Nazis. They have an IRC channel where they spew white supremacist talking points, and where their owner has said he maintains SiegeCulture, another neo-Nazi website. So yeah, Doxbin is far-right for the same reasons that other websites like Gab and Stormfront are. PBZE (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @PBZE on the far right topic, but I like the point @84.196.39.52 made about how this article should only be for the Onion service. Should I start a discussion to split the article into two, one for the onion and one for the current active site (and is the current active site even notable??). TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are credible sources in the article talking about the new website, so I'd say it's notable. I'm not sure if it's worth it to split the articles since it would lead to more confusion, maintenance effort, and fragmentation. The two articles may not have enough content individually to justify a split. It's also unclear to me how different the websites actually are. Their owners are different, but are their userbases and cultures different, for example? PBZE (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that it would be worthwhile to split. Right now, a reader with no previous knowledge of Doxbin would think the two sites are run by the same owners as the facts about both of the sites are blended. Sure, it's more effort, but it would make the topic much clearer and lead to less confusion and reverting of edits. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need to split these topics into two articles. However, I cannot create one. So can either of you guys? 84.196.39.52 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@84.196.39.52 @PBZE I have a basic, basic, barebones draft up right now. It's going to involve moving most of the sources over and rewording the current article. Don't remove anything from this article until the draft is complete and moved to the mainspace. I haven't added much to it, but I'll work on it some more later.
Draft:Doxbin_(clearnet)
TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, before too much is done, I would love if we could get more consensus on this split. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BOLD, I've gone ahead and done it. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Doxbin_(darknet)"