Talk:Ross Ulbricht

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joce Strad.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transhumanist views[edit]

Transhumanist affiliations expressed in the film Deep Web Deku-shrub (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deku-shrub I just watched most of this, and I have not heard the word "Transhumanist" used. Please direct me to the relevant part of the film. Thanks. zzz (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At 1 hour 24 minutes:
RU: You any more questions before we wrap it up?
Interviewer: Yeah, future outlook, what are you going to do over the next 5 years, one sentence?
RU: I'm into a few things so one sentence isn't enough dammit! But I'm pretty sure I want to start a family in the next 5 years.
Interviewer: Nice, okay
RU: And make more friends and close people I love. I want to focus on being connected to people
Interviewer: And 20 years?
RU: 20 years? I want to have had a substantial positive impact on the future of humanity by that time
Interviewer: You think you're going to live forever?
RU: I think it's a possibility
Interviewer: <laughs>
RU: I honestly do! I think I might live forever in some form by that time, technology's changing so fast
Interviewer: Where can I go from there? Sweet
Deku-shrub (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't call that an -ism. Transhumanism "aims to transform the human condition by developing and creating widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities." (WP). The only "physical capacity" he's alluding to there is the capacity to not die. Maybe "in some form" kind of justifies it. zzz (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he follows transhumanism, simply that he appears to be a transhumanist Deku-shrub (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty clearly synthesis. Expressing ideas that are also asserted by the transhumanist subculture is not claiming membership of said subculture, nor are there third-party RSes describing him as a member of said subculture - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Expressing ideas that are also asserted by the transhumanist subculture is not claiming membership of said subculture". You assume the definition of a transhumanist is someone who identifies with the transhumanist subculture. I dispute that definition. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to me that doesn't make him a "transhumanist". So we're back to opinion and synthesis. Do you have anything positive that backs the application of this specific label? - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My definition of a transhumanist is someone who hold cores transhumanist beliefs with regards to longevity through technology. By that bar he's qualified himself. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he believes or has hopes he might live forever doesn't make him a transhumanist, I very much doubt this discussion will lead anywhere unless additional information surfaces. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping to live indefinitely through technology is what defines a transhumanist Deku-shrub (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT notes: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." This isn't the case for "transhumanist".
If we can't find the word in RSes, we'll need something citable. e.g. Did he notably associate with transhumanism? Transhumanist forums, etc? - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not the definition of transhumanist I'm going by. You do not have to be involved in transhumanist organisations and events to be a transhumanist. I'm driven by the Deep Web (film) interview of which I posted the relevant transcript. Consider it like Deism, you don't have to go to church to be a deist Deku-shrub (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That analogy actually goes against your argument, given that WP:BLPCAT specifically says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." The essence of BLPCAT is that we really need solid sourcing to put someone in a category, and that quality of sourcing really doesn't seem to exist for labeling Ulbricht a "transhumanist" - David Gerard (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

article title[edit]

The article was substantially about Ulbricht, and he warrants his own article (and Benthall doesn't really); and everything about Benthall was already in the Silk Road article. So per discussion on Talk:Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road), I've moved it here and cleaned it up a bit - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Charges[edit]

I'm new at this so bear with me. I read the article on Ross Ulbricht, and I checked the statements in the article with their corresponding sources at the end of the article, and I did not see any verification of any intended murders. Nothing. The numbers at the bottom which were supposed to verify or be the source of the information in the article just was not there. If there was evidence of murder plots beyond the unverified statements made by some attorney to a judge, it would be helpful to view that information. I have not yet learned how to edit and I definitely do not know yet how to deal with this issue. Especially since I'm not sure whether the term 'footnotes' apply to that numbered list at the bottom. Citing sources, I refer to number 24 and I think the other was number 15. Help, Please! Thank you.JSL23MAY79 (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)JSL[reply]

The fact of charges are listed in the referenced sources. What particular sources (by name) are you claiming don't support the claims? - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the original poster. I was going to say the same thing though. source: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/no-ross-ulbricht-didnt-murder/
I think the article should be cleaned up a bit. Use of the word "allegedly" in from of "paying $730,000", and mention of he conviction of corruption of the FBI agents should be made as well. There is more relevant information in the link I gave above than just what I'm saying, but it's definitely relevant. I think the statements about murder are truly misleading. 96.38.186.5 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ulbricht Article Edit[edit]

I have recently been asked to facilitate the edits and changes to the current Ross Ulbricht article on wikipedia. I am relatively new to wikipedia and article editing, but I have read that it is common practice to post significant change to an article first to the talk page so that other editors can weigh in and chip-in on the editing process. Keeping in line with Wiki's mantra to be "bold" the article adds significant factual updates on Ross Ulbrichts life, case, and current pending appeal, as such I would like the feedback on the proposed changes. I look forward to your responses. Thank you. Adastras86 (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article (was pasted to the tp, replaced by the revision in which the user made an edit with his proposal) Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adastras86. Welcome! Thank you for wanting to contribute to this article. It's easier for everybody involved if you edit the article directly, because we can use tools to compare the old version of the article to the new one modified by you. If you simply post the modified version to the talk page there is no easy way to do so, and any editor reviewing your changes will have to make a manual comparison of every sentence, making revision very burdensome. I skimmed through your proposal and the current version of the article and it seems that you propose significant changes to it. It is probably a good idea to divide this into different edits. For instance, say you want to rewrite the Early Life section, add content to the Silk Road, arrest and trial section, and modify the lead to address those changes. A good way to do so would be to do three different edits: Rewrite the Early Life section, add content to the other section, and on a third edit rewrite the lead. This way we can compare your changes and revert or correct any errors without having to revert all of your changes. Also, if you haven't already, please take a look at WP:BLP before editing the article significantly. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Adstras86: Hi there. I see you put quite some effort into this article. Unfortunately some other editor reverted your change and called it a "puff piece". I on the other hand appreciate the work you put in but it could use some changes. First off, follow the advice Saturnalia0 gave (especially the part about breaking up the big change into smaller pieces so it can be evaluated in smaller chunks). I also noticed you had a lot of references simply called "Ibid" which I have no idea how to interpret. Hopefully the revert didn't put you off, such things happen and could easily be prevented if you split your changes up into smaller chunks (especially if you could extract the chunks which might be especially uncontroversial)
– Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I called it a puff piece because you wrote it with an obvious and, frankly, unreasonable presumption of innocence. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, I noticed Adastras used Ibid to refer either to the previous or to the next reference in the text (I visited the ones that were accessible to me and fixed accordingly (per MOS:IBID)). I too believe at least part of the edits by Adastras are welcome and can be used, though I don't have the time to review the entire thing (specially considering it's a BLP) and I don't think other editors can review it in a single go either, so a revert is understandable if they see some issues. As I and Erik suggested, if you can break up your edits in parts Adastras86 perhaps a discussion with Lenin and McCarthy can happen on the talk page and hopefully we can agree on what should and what should not be added. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption[edit]

It's not being covered much in this article, but it might be worth mentioning more about the corruption in law enforcement in Ulbricht's case:

--Nanite (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/stealing-bitcoins-with-badges-how-silk-roads-dirty-cops-got-caught/ 71.3.195.32 (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder effect on sentence?[edit]

Anyone have citation for the claim that Ulbricht's murder charge affected his sentence? Λυδαcιτγ 15:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the judgement. That's a primary source, but I'd call it the authoritative source for the fact. Not sure on media noting it though - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never read that Ulbricht murdered anyone. Or do they consider people who overdosed on drugs sold via Silk Road as murders? It's nowhere in the article that he was convicted for murder. Someone Not Awful (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin.com[edit]

User:David Gerard According to Wikipedia Bitcoin.com is not a blog. I told you why I think it doesnt look like a blog. Any reason why you keep saying it is? zzz (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The crypto press are not Reliable Sources for use in Wikipedia, and especially not in a BLP. I urge you to reread WP:BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You "urge" me to, do you? But it's not a "blog" anymore, is that right? zzz (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple problems with this content, so focusing on one will not solve the others. The encyclopedic significance of this surely can be better-sourced, right? If not, it should be treated as trivia. Even if the source is reliable for the existence of this survey, which is a big if, that doesn't mean that this info belongs here. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What murders?[edit]

So the article says as an aside: "None of the procuring murder allegations were part of Ulbricht's indictment in New York." Huh? What procuring murder allegations? This is the first time anything about them is mentioned.—Chowbok ☠ 22:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - this is redundant with discussion of the allegations elsewhere in the article, and looks like it's been added to somewhere that talks about something else - I've removed it since those allegations are covered adequately elsewhere in the article - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-violent charges?[edit]

Does the kingpin charge really count as non-violent if directed use of violence was factored into the sentencing and used to increase his offence level? I believe that "non-violent" should be removed from the article. Serioussam909 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it on a different rationale; if no murder-for-hire charges were in that trial, it's redundant. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Severe NPOV failure[edit]

This article, as it currently stands, has severely failed the Wikipedia Policy on Neutral Point Of View. WP:NPOV clearly states:

"...(NPOV)...which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis added)

Yesterday I had done some edits which were an effort toward getting the lede to conform to WP. But that effort was promptly reverted. Here are some examples of justification offered in these reverts:

"complete denial of the nature of the business"
"Was a drug trafficker, regardless of motives."

This criticism is directed specifically at Lenin and McCarthy, although there may be other editors who are responsible for the gross deficiencies this article has in its current form.

Here is a Time Magazine article from Jan 21, 2015, where the top of the article shows a prominent photo of protesters standing outside of the courtroom holding signs which say:

"WEBHOSTING IS NOT A CRIME!"
https://time.com/3673321/silk-road-dread-pirate-roberts/

Yet the first words of our Wikipedia article unequivocally states: "Ross William Ulbricht... is an American convict..."
Ok, it is clearly factual that he was convicted by the US government. But WP requires us to give proper weight to the other perspectives of his story. There are MANY people who feel that Ulbricht was railroaded. Some go so far as to maintain that he was totally innocent. And even people who saw him to be guilty believe that the punishment he was given was grossly out of proportion to what was expected.

Where are any of these other points of view indicated in the lede of this article?

Or even so much as hinted at? All it states is that appeals were made and failed. I have not yet thoroughly examined the body of the article, but judging by what appears in the lede, my expectation is that this NPOV failure goes much deeper than the introduction. This article needs A LOT of work before it reaches an acceptable standard which meets this basic requirement that we fairly and proportionately represent the story of Ross Ulbricht. For anyone who does not understand what the rest of his story is, I would recommend watching the Alex Winter documentary Deep Web. That film also serves as an example of what an attempt at NPOV might look like.

Here is a repost of the justification I had offered in my effort to fix this article:

"Wikipedia's policy is Npov, not GPOV. This encyclopedia is not here to serve up the Government Point Of View. Notice that the Edward Snowden article does not start by saying he "is a criminal". And the Benedict Arnold article does not start by saying he "was a traitor". Ulbricht is notable for the business he created and ran, and the proper way to present this info is to communicate facts, but NOT to do so as though it was written by the US govt. How ironic that he was born in 1984."
"...If it was possible to gain an historic perspective here, we might be able to see that this is by far the most notable aspect of Ulbricht's actions. He created a business which put Bitcoin on the map. And he did it in a way that was extremely difficult for the government to control. I will suggest that "Libertarian" belongs somewhere here in this lede, as this is the NPOV aspect which contrasts with the Government's perspective on his case."
"My edits have no denial whatsoever regarding the US Govt perspective on illegality of felony charges and conviction of Ulbricht. What is at issue here is that NPOV requires us to communicate MORE than just this one perspective. We have the obligation to present a complete account for the benefit of the public."

If we work together, then this deficiency can be remedied quickly. As for anyone who might like a better understanding of what Neutral Point Of View means, I'd be glad to offer some pointers. --WHS Dad (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Road was built to be a black market. It functioned as a black market. Describing Ross as just another businessman isn't neutral - it's buying into his own rhetoric completely. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will repost this down here, as it looks to be the most salient fact which you persist in ignoring:

Here is a Time Magazine article from Jan 21, 2015, where the top of the article shows a prominent photo of protesters standing outside of the courtroom holding signs which say:

"WEBHOSTING IS NOT A CRIME!"
https://time.com/3673321/silk-road-dread-pirate-roberts/
Hopefully it can be seen that it is not Ross Ulbricht alone who held this perspective. There were MANY people who supported him throughout the entire event. And even support for him which persists through to this day. Time Magazine is a top source regarding reliability. And notice where they choose in that article to put that photo of protesters supporting Ulbricht. It is at the very top of that article. Yet the lede FAILS to reflect this non-government perspective regarding his case.
I have highlighted the failure of this article as clearly as I know how to explain it. For whatever reason, you have decided that discussing this matter here, on this Talk Page is not sufficient. You have opened up new sections over at the [Noticeboard], as well as on my User Talk page. I have no idea why you did that.
My expectation is that other editors here will be able to quickly see the merit of this issue I have highlighted. The magic of Wikipedia does not happen through the efforts of any single editor. It happens through the collaboration of all of us, in our collective efforts. An article either conforms to Wikipedia Policy, or it doesn't. And I have clearly shown here how this article on Ross Ulbricht has failed dismally to present the full story.
Every editor who comes here will be able to see this for themselves. And even you, I expect that if you were to take a step back, then you might be able to see this also. Perhaps you might like to spend some time in watching that Alex Winter documentary. For anyone who is not aware of a different perspective on this case other than the govt perspective, this is perhaps the best source that I am aware of to explain it.
I trust in the process of how Wikipedia is able to achieve very high quality articles, even when editors do not see things the same way. It is actually because we don't see things from the same perspective that opens this door for Wikipedia to have magical results, many times. Because of my confidence that there will be many others who will be able to clearly see this for themselves, I am deciding to step back from editing this article. I will sit on my hands for several weeks. Maybe even for several months, and watch how this issue gets dealt with.
Goodbye for now. --WHS Dad (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WHS Dad, The Time article predates the conviction, and was written in ignorance of facts and evidence that were established at trial. You are using this source to label him an "entrepreneur". That word is not used in the article. What you are doing is changing the lead, which is supposed to summarise the article, to reflect a minority point of view that was pretty comprehensively rejected at trial and appeal. Guy (help!) 07:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that we are agreed that the top defining characteristic of Ulbricht is him being a criminal. He still figured out a way to do these crimes that was novel. It took a very long time for the authorities to figure out how to catch him. And in this business he created, he collected BILLIONS of dollars while doing it. Now let's look at the definition of the word:
entrepreneur: a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk. (dictionary.com)
I hope we can all agree that this fits perfectly with what he had accomplished. Silk Road is a business that put Bitcoin on the map. An extremely strong argument can be made that if only one thing were stated about Ross Ulbricht, then this would be the most historically significant thing. The fact that illegal things were bought and sold on his website would come as an extremely distant second.
Now also note that the edit, as I had left it, clearly stated that he was arrested in 2013. These are clearcut undebatable facts. Ulbricht was an entrepreneur. Ulbricht was arrested and convicted.
The key point why I opened this section is to call attention to the fact that this article has FAILED in our requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. The lede, as it stands in its current reverted form, gives NO HINT as to the historic significance that the Silk Road made for cryptocurrency as a whole.
Other severe NPOV issues in the lede are that it gives no hint about the many people who protested his arrest, in seeing him as having done nothing wrong. And after his conviction, huge protest in how disproportionate his sentence was.
So there are at least three major NPOV issues here that are in need of being addressed.
On top of all that, and some would say the MOST important issue, is Ulbricht's philosophical stand. He created and operated his business under a Libertarian ethos. That word is mentioned NOWHERE in the lede. It is mentioned once, buried in the body of the article, and only as a passing comment, when there are many people who see this principle to be the single most defining characteristic of Ross Ulbricht's legacy. Even MORE important than what he did to establish the legitimacy of cryptocurrency. And there is a subset within this group who hold that THIS is Ulbricht's actual crime, and why his punishment was so dispropportionate. It is because the Proof of Concept of this business he created undermined the very foundation of power which all governments operate upon.
Let's work together to get all 4 of these major issues addressed.
I will continue to sit on my hands and leave the article edits to others for now.
Yes, I readily agree that these aspects were "pretty comprehensively rejected at trial and appeal". And if the Wikipedia Policy was that we conform our articles to the GovtPOV, then it would be clear that the article fits with that. But the guidance we are given is to be "Neutral". And this means fair and proportionate. This article, as it stands now, is FAR from either of those things. --WHS Dad (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair article by Nick Bilton reliable source?[edit]

Nick Bilton wrote an article in the 18 December 2020 Vanity Fair about Ulbricht's trial. Is this article a reliable source? I think so. Bilton is the author of a 2017 book American Kingpin: The Epic Hunt for the Criminal Mastermind Behind the Silk Road about Ulricht and his trial. The book was published by Portfolio, a reputable publisher. As Bilton writes in the Vanity Fair article, he sat through the entire trial. He also read the 2.1 million words of chat logs that Ulbricht exchanged with his employees. In the article Bilton writes:

"According to more than a dozen investigators and attorneys involved in the case who I spoke to for the book, Ulbricht’s sentence could have been a lot less severe. He was offered a plea deal, which would have likely given him a decade-long sentence, with the ability to get out early on good behavior. Worst-case scenario, he would have spent five years in a medium-security prison and been freed. But, he chose to fight it. He believed that he was smarter than everyone in the room, and that he could beat them all."

By any Wikipedia standard Bilton is a reliable source. The information about Ulbricht's turning down a plea deal belongs in the article. Chisme (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at this, reports of a 'plea deal'seem ambiguous, but are reported by sources other than VF. Whether his opinion about the possibility of a pardon should be included, I am ambiguous but would come down slightly on the 'yes' side. The person who removed both, has made no edits outside this topic. Pincrete (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recently another editor, User:UnityCourt, who has only edited the Ross Ulbricht article, also claimed that Bilton isn't a reliable source. Clearly he is. Besides the Vanity Fair article, he wrote an entire book about Silk Road in 2017 (American Kingpin: The Epic Hunt for the Criminal Mastermind Behind the Silk Road). The book was published by Penguin, a highly reputable publisher. The burden is on editors to prove that Bilton isn't a reliable source, not the other way around. Chisme (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change.org petition with roughly 500,000 signatures[edit]

Copied from Pincrete's talk page:

Hey Pincrete! I cannot tell what you reverted in your last edit of the Ross Ulbricht page (how do I locate "revision numbers" I don't see those in talk history, and I am still rather new. I agree we are not an advocacy site for Ross, and I am not sure how sharing information about there being a petition in existence, and then sharing relevant information as to the current total of signatures (which is near half a million) is advocacy? Thanks! Oh, and this is the revision number that I have trouble finding since I can't tell where these are located in the "View history" section. Th78blue (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Th78blue, it's better to keep any discussion of an article on the articles own talk page, so I'm moving your questions here, You don't need revision numbers - choosing 'prev' in the history will take you to the difference between any two revisions, you can then choose 'next' or 'previous' to go from edit to edit, one edit at a time. Alternatively, marking any two circles alongside the edit history revisions, and then choosing 'compare selected revisions' above the list will show you the 'total' difference between any two more distant edits.
Putting any info about the petition is basically advocacy - a single sentence or two is being fairly kind - it's like inviting readers to contribute to the petition, which is not our purpose. That info isn't encyclopaedic and hasn't been written up by reliable, notable sources independent of Ulbricht and isn't covered by the same number or quality of sources that covered the trial etc. Also, your last edit about him having several online pseudonyms should have an independent secondary source (eg an article or book). The 'public court transcripts' would not be a secondary source, but a primary one and therefore of no value to WP, we don't use primary sources very much, since interpreting them is deemed to be WP:OR. I haven't reverted you, but don't see the relevance of him having other online names - AFAI knew, the DPR 'handle' was the one used during the relevant period. Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pincrete:, from what I can tell. The DPR handle was indeed the one used during the latter half of the "relevant period" prior to his arrest and subsequent conviction. However, as far as the "Silk Road Admin" handle, that was used for perhaps half of the entire time that Silk Road was in operation. This is mentioned also in Nick Bilton's book on the case, American Kingpin.
I've removed the content about the online petition. This is cited entirely to crypto-themed blogs and news websites, rather than any mainstream sources, and I don't find the sourcing to reflect anything biographically noteworthy. See WP:UNDUE. Neutralitytalk 16:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: There are now nearly 500,000 signatures on the petition asking for clemency for Ross Ulbricht. Similar to how the George Floyd article has a mention of its own change.org petition (which in the interest of full disclosure and transparency, was an edit that I myself have contributed to for Floyd and others in the criminal justice reform space), I believe that this piece deserves a mention at the very least. I presented the information with the various sources, of which at least bitcoin.com is notable and prominent if not the others. As for your reference then of WP:UNDUE, would you say that it is not worth at least the limited words that I had penned for it, and no more? Perhaps a briefer segment still? It seems to me that since the petition exists, and is nearing half a million signatures, and that it is written about in numerous different sources (some more reputable than others), that at minimum it now meets the following "criteria", "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Thanks!! Th78blue (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without any mainstream sources (journalistic or academic), I just don't think this rises to the level of biographical significance. Neutralitytalk 00:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts, @Neutrality: What about this? Or this? This may not be a news publication that we find agreeable, but from a "neutrality" standpoint, the Washington Examiner here mentions the Change.org petition specifically by name, and as significant, "A Change.org petition calling for his release has been signed by over 382,000 people and has received support from members of Congress like GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, civil libertarian groups like the National Lawyers Guild, and proponents of cryptocurrencies and encryption technologies.". I think a SHORT mention (as I had previously included on Ross Ulbricht's page) is within the parameters of notable and is certainly verifiable. Perhaps you hadn't seen these sources? Frankly, I hadn't either, only just now found them in an additional bit of research just now. Th78blue (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. CoinDesk and the Washington Examiner aren't what I would call very good sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources color-codes sources. Neutralitytalk 16:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point @Neutrality: on "CoinDesk", they are in the "Red" according to that ranking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. How did I not see this sooner!? It would have really saved me a lot of trouble across various spaces that I edit. What about "Washington Examiner" though? That is "yellow" which says, "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline." There is that part about how, "... it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims", but I don't think mentioning the petition is an "exceptional claim", but rather just a statement of plain fact. This article was written by two dispassionate sources to the Ross Ulbricht trial, Katherine Doyle (White House Correspondent), and Joseph Simonson (Political Reporter). Given what is stated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I believe it would be fair to re-include my previous short mention of the existence of the petition (similar to the George Floyd mention of another famous change.org petition), and rough estimation of current signature count, but this time I would include the Washington Examiner and NOT the cryptocurrency/bitcoin "sources" as my attribution for the edit. Furthermore, no "call to action" of course for people to sign the petition would be appropriate (I did not do this previously, but other editors have claimed that a mere mention of the petition's existence is equivalent of a "call to action", a claim with which I disagree), and I agree now with @Pincrete:'s point that we should not link directly to it either. Thank you for reading :) Th78blue (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Th78blue, he's no George Floyd. Please drop that comparison, and please stop adding that advocacy link--it's a pretty clear abuse of Wikipedia's popularity. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. There seem to be two separate points being discussed, and I'd like to only discuss ONE at a time if possible in this particular segment of this talk page here. That is the issue I raised with @Neutrality: regarding a small blurb about the petition. No link TO the petition, but a small mention OF it. I feel that a petition that has around 500,000 signatures is of biographical noteworthiness, but more importantly, the question at hand was that since the Washington Examiner as a "yellow-color-coded" (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) by rank secondary source made direct mention of this petition, can we now include the two or three sentence blurb under a "Petition for clemency" or "Change.org petition" blurb on Ross Ulbricht's article? This is not a call-to-action, but I feel it mentions something of importance that has happened related to Ross Ulbricht's life, in his life. Is recording details of that nature not the point of the encyclopedia? Thank you all!!! And if I am truly the one lone person who seems to believe this, then I will cede to an opposing consensus of course, not trying to be obstructive, but I feel I've made some good points, and so far the dissagreement appears to consist of "don't raise that point" or "its not important"... and I am just looking for precise reasons countering the questions that I am asking about the validity of including the secondary source of Washington Examiner to refer to this one small biographical detail about this man Ulbricht... THANKS! (pinging now just so that the interested parties involved see this post and do not think I am talking behind anyone's back or anything like that!!) @Pincrete: @Neutrality: @Drmies: <3
Anyone have any thoughts on the above specifically addressing my concerns? Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 04:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Ulbricht's trial should have it's own Wikipedia page[edit]

there are many legal issues debated during his trial and I believe they should have an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to them L33tSpeak (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRossDAO[edit]

Editor @UnityCourt: deleted the following text, claiming false info: FreeRossDAO is not associated with Ulbricht or his family

FreeRossDAO raised about $12 million, half of which went to Ulbricht's family when the organization purchased the NFT from the family. The rest is controlled by Ulbricht's family and associates through FreeRossDAO with the stated purposes of releasing Ulbricht, advancing prison reform, and "share Ross's work with the world."[1]

The citation is a reported article. That article main source about the organization is René Pinnell, "one of Ulbricht’s childhood friends who now serves as the 'operational lead' for the DAO." The organization's activities must be approved by "an advisory council, consisting of Ulbricht’s mother, fiancé, lifelong friend, and lawyer." The three stated purposes of the organization are accurate paraphrases of quotes from the organization's manifesto. The deleted text accurately describes the main organization which is raising money and running efforts to free Ross Ulbricht. The editor's assertion that it does not belong in the article about Ross Ulbricht is mystifying to me. I propose we put it back.

References

  1. ^ Mak, Aaron (2022-01-25). "The Crypto Obsessives Trying to Save a Notorious Internet Criminal From Prison". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2022-01-25.

M.boli (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UnityCourt's reasons may have been wrong, but the removal is not IMO. This isn't a campaigning site for Ulbricht. We are here simply to record those main facts about the case which have been extensively reported on. The fact that there is a source for the text is insufficient to justify inclusion. Sorry, but we aren't a mouthpiece for Ulbricht or his family or friends or for any 'manifesto' they have written. Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Righto. Absent significant public interest in the free Ulbricht movement, there isn't a strong reason for the material to be here. The NFT sale, its purpose, and the involvement of a DAO were in the news. This Wikipedia article is a place people will come to for more information, and trying to get Ulbricht out of jail is directly related to Ulbricht being in jail. However my guess is that the news coverage and interest is probably because of the novelty factor.
By the way, the self-dealing nature of the transaction has an appearance of being sketchy. There is also a "Son of Sam Law" appearance: a criminal who leverages his crime or notoriety for profit while in prison can trigger asset forfeiture in many states. These appearances may be why the other editor took pains to deny the family connection while deleting the material, but the connection is factual. I have no knowledge that the self-dealing is actually ethically problematical, which is why I mentioned what the group says it is using the money for.
I put the Slate article back as a reference, as a moderately comprehensive reliably-sourced reported article that contains the facts of the transaction without calling the ethics into question. -- M.boli (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putative likely 10-year sentence deal[edit]

I think the paragraphs about the putative plea deal (from the Dec 2020 Vanity Fair article) could be better explained. But I haven't seen any reliable sources reporting on it.

The context is Ulbricht's "motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence" filed in 2019, which seems to still be in progress. Referring to the magazine article, Ulbricht claimed that the government had earlier offered him a very nice plea agreement with a likely 10 year sentence. There is a contrast between that putative offer and sentence from trial. However the prosecutor denies it: there was only the pre-trial offer of 10 years to life, the sentencing guideline was life, and that is what the prosecutor would have recommended.

The case documents are here: Court Listener: Ulbricht v. United States (1:19-cv-07512). I'll probably modify the URL for Howard's affidavit to point there, rather than the sketchier Free Ross web site.

If reliable reporting on the court motion to get Ulbricht out of jail can be found, it might warrant a separate section where this material would go. -- M.boli (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair is generally an RS, its news content is rigidly fact-checked. I don't think we can go "claimed" here as if we're making out it's not - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian in the lead[edit]

@M.boli "Entrepreneur" was not a joke, but fine I get why maybe it should be removed because it sounds too legitimate. What I don't understand was the removal of the second paragraph which explains why he founded SR (libertarian political belifs). People may think it was for financial gain or interest in the drug trade, however all sources indicate he was a raging libertarian, and it was central to his character and is what guided him to build SR. It's in no way validating what he did was moral, only that it is "why" he did it. Can you help me understand why you think that's not important enough for the lead. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulbricht was running a criminal enterprise. Later in the article, in the first paragraph on the creation of Silk Road, Ulbricht is quoted on libertarian motivations. If somebody made a living robbing banks and tried to hire a hitman to kill the witnesses, nobody would think the social media posts on freedom and lack of coercion would be lede-worthy or central to the story. They are a possibly interesting footnote. -- M.boli (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interest in Libertarianism isn't actually in either of the sources used in that para. The early attempts to sell magic mushrooms is cited and I am neutral to positive about inclusion. Part of the paradox of this case - explored in many sources - is the extent to which this was an elaborate - if arrogant - game to him. To the Govt it was simply a crime of course. The 'hitman charges' were largely dropped for lack of evidence I believe. Pincrete (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) Good point: the quotes in the creation of Silk Road describe libertarian motivations, but they aren't labeled libertarian. For the description of Ulbricht as libertarian see the second paragraph on the preceding section on early life and education. b) It might be that Ulbricht's attitudes deserve a section, I can't think of a reason why not. c) Read the section on the murder for hire allegations, given the credence placed in them by the legal system at multiple points lack of evidence seems unlikely. -- M.boli (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of Pacific Time[edit]

An interesting sentence in this article reads "a drug agency investigator infiltrated the site and became an admin, thereby gaining inside information about the site operations, and finding Ulbricht's chats use to be Pacific time, narrowing down his likely location," but its source failed verification. I read through the source and couldn't find reference to this either, but an interview with an Homeland Security Investigations agent Jared Der-Yeghiayan and court transcripts from January 13, 2015 seem to support this (though I can't verify the authenticity of or find from another source).

Page 298

Q. Then in the chat window here, local time, 20:23:05, what does that refer to?

A. That refers to whenever Dread Pirate Roberts would be online, it would show what the local time is for him, and as I understand it, that would be what time was on their computer.

Q. And what time zone was that reflected in?

A. That would be Pacific Standard -- Pacific Time.

Q. Did you set that to Pacific Standard Time, or is that the way it automatically appeared?

A. That is the way it automatically appeared every time you login.

Q. When you chatted with people in other time zones, what time zones did it appear in?

MR. DRATEL: Objection.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase that.

MR. TURNER

Q. Would you talk to other staff members through chat?

A. I would.

Q. How would their time zones appear?

A. So when I would talk to samesamebutdifferent, I knew he was in Australia. He would tell me he was in Australia. It would reflect a time zone in Australia. And the same thing with inigo, through the course of the investigation we believed that he might have been East Coast, and it was actually showing an East Coast time zone.

Page 299

Q. Throughout the time when you chatted with DPR through the system, what time zone was shown when you chatted with him or for his local time entry? A. Every time I chatted with him it would show Pacific Time Zone.

A16X (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely regarded as controversial"[edit]

A recent addition starts with: Ulbricht's sentence has been widely regarded as controversial. The source for the claim of widespread controversy seems to be the Free Ross web site in the next paragraph, which is hardly a reliable source on the question. The quote from Gary Johnson is not in the reference, which merely quotes Johnson's spokesperson saying Johnson "would look favorably on pardoning Ross Ulbricht." The source for the quote is, again, the Free Ross web site: I find it nowhere else except somebody's medium blog post.

I've removed these paragraphs. There may indeed be disagreement about Ulbricht's sentence. But the assertion that this is notable or widespread was not supported. -- M.boli (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. In hindsight, yes, my edits were badly sourced. Although I personally disagree with his sentence, the edits simply were not fit for a Wikipedia article. Legendaryuser (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ross_Ulbricht&oldid=1195115131"