Talk:Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road)

Eagle scout

The New York Times talks in depth about his Eagle Scout status

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/business/eagle-scout-idealist-drug-trafficker.html

PLEASE stop CENSORING this information OUT of the WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.42.190 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That is Ulbrict, who is not definitely DPR. Matty.007 19:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Other DPRs

There isn't just one Dread Pirate Roberts, correct? Even after Ulbricht's arrest, a new person stepped up and is now posting under the DPR name. The article consistently talks about DPR as if he's just one person (Ross Ulbricht). 128.252.102.173 (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I just went ahead and changed the intro. If somebody wants to slap a "citation needed" on it, be my guest. There's a bit more nuance that should probably go into this article (importantly, a timeline discussing the various DPRs), but it's extremely difficult to find resources for it. I don't think the silk road forums really counts. 128.252.102.173 (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the article is about Ross Ulbricht, not the multi-person DPR. The article should be renamed "Ross Ulbricht". The fact (?) that someone briefly assumed his place after his arrest may be only a note in his biography. He has been identified as "the" DPR with overwhelming evidence, and did not deny it. He has been tried, convicted and sentenced. His case and trial were widely reported and among the bitcoin and drug user communities, and surely among the law enforcement agencies involved, because of their multiple persistent implications. His life (including his background before he started Silk Road) has been described in many articles, and now in a book by a reputable reporter. Apart from his crimes, he is notable also for having invented the bitcoin-based "dark market", a concept that has been emulated many times since. If he is not notable enough to deserve a bio under his name, I don't know who is... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

An earlier article exists

Multiple versions of Ross William Ulbricht exist in its edit history. Some of the material may be suitable for this article, but some is unsuitable because it's not well-referenced and some is unsuitable for this article because it's about his life outside of the "Dread Pirate Roberts" persona. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP

This article appears to be about Ross William Ulbricht, who (allegedly) was Dread Pirate Roberts (Silk Road). So it needs to be renamed "Ross William Ulbricht" and be edited to comply with BLP, which seems to have been somehow overlooked. zzz (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've requested the name change and edited it a bit to comply with BLP zzz (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Censorship"

If any of the editors who keep restoring the stuff about criminal allegations want to justify theirself, please go ahead. It just looks like grave-dancing to me. And it's against the WP:BLPCRIME policy: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". He's obviously "relatively unknown". zzz (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Ross Ulbricht has been reported on by Forbes, Wall Street Journal, CBS, New York Post, amongst others. He is not "relatively unknown" by any stretch of the imagination. Your attempts to censor factual information has been noted and is not against WP:BLPCRIME policy due to the profile of the individual. 73.40.254.86 (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)kb

It is 'factual', that's not in dispute. He's only known because he's been arrested; his name has only been mentioned in the articles that covered the arrest. So he's "relatively unknown", as has "been noted" (by me). What do you think "relatively unknown" means? I'm afraid you're mistaken about "the profile of the individual" zzz (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This has had a very large amount of media coverage. The amount of money (bitcoin) that is alleged to have been amassed by Dread Pirate Roberts makes it a notable case just on that basis. This article should more properly be titled "Ross William Ulbricht" since he is the person on trial, not "Dread Pirate Roberts". Please stop edit warring here. If you don't think this article should exist send it to AFD or suggest a merge with Silk Road (marketplace). Legit Alternate Account (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, as it happens, I took it to the BLP noticeboard, and it was agreed that the information should be removed, and the page should ideally be deleted or merged. I merged it with Silk Road. User Matty unmerged it, a month later. Just leave the offending material out, and there won't be an edit war. Take it back to the BLP noticeboard, if you want, but in the meantime I'll be following what was agreed there last time. zzz (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That BLP noticeboard discussion is here. There were a total of three editors commenting. You can start another discussion there or nominate the article for deletion as WP:BLP1E (I might even support that), but edit warring is not a recommended option. At a certain point, the amount of press coverage makes an accused person notable even if they never go to trial or get convicted. Richard Jewell might be an example. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the discussion, I suggest that you follow your own advice, and start another discussion. It would hardly be logical for me to do so, since I am in full agreement with the discussion that already occurred. In the meantime, you should avoid edit warring. The accused person has not become any more notable since I started the BLP discussion, a month ago, so if you do start a new discussion, you are likely to be disappointed. zzz (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, they have become more notable, since there have been further developments in the court cases and these developments have been widely reported. If this was a low profile case where the accused was unknown, I would support your actions here. This isn't that case. This is a high profile case which may set precedents for how the FBI gathers evidence in the future. Leaving out the name of the accused here is not helpful to Ross William Ulbricht since the article should also make clear that Ulbricht denies they are the person behind the Dread Pirate Roberts pseudonym. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And, since apparently I do need to state the bleeding obvious (I'm amazed you haven't been blocked already) - Using an "Alternate Account" to attempt to impose your POV in violation of WP policy is not "Legit". zzz (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's stick to talking about the article. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Info

I think the article should state the amount of bit coins seized by the FBI, and when, and the ramifications, if someone wants to add that, with a reliable up-to-date reference. zzz (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

Note that I fully protected the article for three days to give the sides time to agree. I also removed the disputed content, since I do not know whether it is libel or not, but potentially it is better if it is not on the article during the protection period. If agreement has not been achieved during three days I suggest that the protection be reduced to semi. Note that I am not watching this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reaching Agreement

Please propose adding material about the criminal case in this section first so there's no edit war. I'm fine with the article as it is, for now, obviously. I don't see why this article should become become part of the FBI's PR campaign to discredit DPR. Admittedly, a tiny insignificant part - which is why I don't want to waste any more time on it if I don't have to. zzz (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to get involved here, but it seems really silly that this article does not mention the names of the now two people arrested who (allegedly) used this pseudonym. It's a gross misapplication of WP:BLPNAME to exclude the names of people who have been widely reported on in mainstream media. That policy was written for things like rape victims, to keep people from digging in obscure court documents to get a name that the media has intentionally left out of their coverage, absolutely not for situations like this. Gigs (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone has been accused of something by law enforcement and reliable sources back that up then it is not a BLP issue to report this accusation as long as it does not have undue weight. Considering this is directly related to the sole basis of notability for the subject I don't think it is undue weight. Make it clear that it is an accusation by whichever law enforcement made the accusation and be clear that it is there has been no conviction. Chillum 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've said frequently, mentioning names is not an issue (the name is in the reference, anyway). If anyone thinks it is worth adding the name to the article, go ahead: I have no opinion on this. zzz (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

On account of the lack of notability, I merged this article with Silk Road (marketplace). Someone later unmerged it for some reason. zzz (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If there was a lack of notability then, there probably isn't anymore. Gigs (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why - no new developments until the trial in January. zzz (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, there's nothing to say in this article that isn't already in the other one. It's just a repetition of the arrest details, and a sentence about "the princess bride". Totally pointless. And he's only notable for getting arrested for allegedly being the owner of Silk Road. Anyone who has any idea at all about the subject or BLP policies can see that the article should obviously not exist. zzz (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's easily the most pitiful excuse for an article I've seen. zzz (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Economic simulation

I must admit that this story is interesting. I would add the "I am creating an economic simulation" quote; unfortunately, I am involved in too many articles. Legit Alternate Account should ask to be unblocked. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge into Silk Road?

Is this article long enough to warrant its own full article? Should it be merged into a section in the main Silk Road article? Eric (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be merged. I did merge it, a few weeks ago, in fact (but someone unmerged it). zzz (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think it shouldn't be merged. This guy is going to be all over the news next month when his trial starts and people will want information about him. He's fascinating too. I think we should change the name of this article to his real name. Chisme (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is starting to be expanded slightly, so I don't mind leaving it. But changing the title would be unwise I think, on account of the WP:BLPCRIME issues such a move would create. zzz (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

How does running the article under the man's real name violate "a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty?" Chisme (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP

Editors please note that no criminal trial has taken place yet. zzz (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Ross Ulbricht?

Note: The articles were both unilaterally blanked and redirected to Silk Road, so while the merge discussion was never closed, it might as well be considered to be so. —ajf (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The two articles are very similar and quite short, I don't see why we need two. If we want to say for now that Ulbricht might not be DPR, just make him a subsection of the DPR article. —ajf (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• In addition to this: Ulbricht's only relevance is through the general suspicion that he is the Dread Pirate Roberts. So it would make sense to make him a subsection of DPR: he's done nothing notable to Wikipedia beyond that, I think. —ajf (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think we should keep the Ulbricht article and drop this one. In case you didn't notice, Ulbricht is a real person, whereas Dread Pirate Roberts, the Silk Road version, is second-hand fictional pseudonym. Second-hand fictional pseudonym don't usually appear as entries in encyclopedias. Chisme (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say that's true. If a pseudonymous person is notable enough, they get an article. Look at Jack the Ripper or D. B. Cooper. And in those cases, suspects are mentioned as subsections. Also, again, Ulbricht's only "claim to fame", as it were, is that he is suspected of being DPR. Relatedly, DPR is notable independent of Ulbricht, but Ulbricht isn't notable independent of DPR. So I think making Ulbricht a subsection of DPR makes sense. —ajf (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• When a "pseudonymous person is notable enough," his or her article gets his or her name, not the pseudonym. For example, "The Unabomber" isn't the title of the article about Ted Kaczynski. That article is found under the principle's name -- Ted Kaczynski. Jack the Ripper isn't a good example. No one knows what the killer's real name was. We know who Dread Pirate Roberts is. Ulbricht has admitted to being him at his trial. Chisme (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Has he admitted that? He's admitted to founding Silk Road, but that's all, IIRC. We don't know that DPR is Ulbricht, and until that case finishes, we still will not know. If at some point it's firmly established that it is Ulbricht, then we can rename the unified DPR article to Ross William Ulbricht. But for now, he should be a subsection of the DPR article, IMO. —ajf (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirected this and the Ulbricht article to Silk Road

Ulbricht has not been found guilty, so the stand-alone article under his name as well as this one in which Ulbricht is the central figure, are clear violations of WP:BLPCRIME. There is furthermore (and I must emphasize this is secondary) no indication the subject is even notable per WP:BIO and WP:CRIME. It's about the alleged operator of a notable site. Worth mentioning (but not Ulbricht) at the Silk Road article, but not stand-alone. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If he is convicted, does that make him worthy of an article? Chisme (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page but it's probably worth saying here, too (and keeping the thread where others will see it). The redirect was, far and away, a WP:BLPCRIME matter. If he's convicted, that concern disappears completely. Thinking past that, however, WP:CRIME (the notability guideline) does pose a problem for the vast majority of articles about criminals. It begins 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. Given the existence of the latter in Silk Road (marketplace), the threshold is quite high for notability. My own opinion for the best approach, if he were convicted, would be to create a section heading for him at the Silk Road article. There really do look to be a good amount of sources about him to justify a top-level section-heading there. But again, all this is secondary to BLP at the moment. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

As per Talk:Silk_Road_(marketplace)#Additional_sources_about_DPR he has been convicted and given a life sentence, so this article has been re-established. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

article subject

The article as it was a few minutes ago didn't name Ulbricht in the lead and had separate second-level sections for Ulbricht, Blake Benthall, and Other Identities. If he was convicted of being Dread Pirate Roberts, he should be the subject of this article (though I'm not saying a title change is in order).

I rewrote the lead to that effect and reorganized the sections. Now it has sections for Early life and education, Silk Road and arrest, Trial, and then Shared name to cover Benthall and the others.

I'm a little concerned about naming other people, though, just because they were alleged by Ulbricht or others -- it is, after all, a crime they're being accused of. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to make the article more generic about the Dread Pirate Roberts names. None the less, in it's current state I would support it moving over to Ross Ulbricht. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, have another look at the sources. They now think DPR2 and Defcon were two different people after all. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)