Talk:Playpen (website)

Remove page Operation Pacifier
Operation Pacifier really does not need to exist. This page covers it and more. DreamlessGlare (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Operation Pacifier now redirects here. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this move. Greater than 75% of of this article is about the Operation Pacifier, with very little about the actual website. There are dozens of other operations that were instrumental in shutting down one or more websites which maintain their own operation article separate from the website article, very few of the websites even have articles actually.  If a merge was warranted, it should have been from the article about the webpage into the operation that shut it down.
 * See Operation Torpedo as an example, which was used to shut down three such pages.eximo (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Split/Separate Operation Pacifier and Playpen (website)

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move/split. Please do not modify it. The consensus was against splitting the article. The consensus was for moving (and editing) the article. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move/split review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For a draft of the split to Operation Pacifier see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PaladinOfDaedalus/draft_operation_pacifier.

The pages: Operation Pacifier and Playpen (Website) were merged in 2021, but if anything they should have been merged into the operation pacifier article, and not the website article.

I propose that the two pages which are separate in nature, purpose and content be split. Arguments for and against are below:

Arguments For:

 * The operation information takes up more than 80% of the content of the present article. There is also a paradigm. - eximo (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * A great number of people are not comfortable in accessing a page about CSAM, certainly not searching for it. Several prosecutors in the United states have used searches for even the name of a CSAM website such as this in 404b evidence against the accused.  Thus, requiring a person that seeks information about the law enforcement operation to visit a site that is at least scary for many to access poses an issue. -  eximo (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There is an existing paradigm for many of these operations already, which should be followed. - eximo (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC) See examples:
 * Operation Torpedo
 * Operation Lobos 1
 * Operation Dark Huntor
 * Operation DisrupTor

Arguments Against
(see Splitting for more information and procedures.


 * Comment this appears to make a stronger case for a rename than a split. I do not see any suitable sources about the CSAM site other than its illegality and shutdown and this could all be covered at an article called Operation Pacifier Jorahm (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jorahm I would compromise to that outcome for the article if that is the consensus.  However there is precedence for several of the sites that were taken down by government operations to have their own article separate from the government operation.  SEE for example Category:Child pornography websites.  I'm not sure the reasoning, if this is not a community supported goal, then we could look at a project to merge those articles into their operations. eximo (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Rename. There doesn't seem to be enough content to support a split. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has been posted for longer than a month, there are two votes for renaming and 1 vote that concedes to renaming in lieu of a split, this demonstrates some amount of consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). Per WP:BOLD I will move the page and draft it according to the WP:CONSISTENT with other operations pages of the same manner. (see Operation Torpedo, and Operation Lobos 1)eximo (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.