Website for infobox

The website freeross.org is the official website associated with Ross Ulbricht, and furthermore had previously been in the infobox of over a year I believe or more. One editor recently removed it stating that it is not. BLPs are permitted to have their official website in the infobox so what is the justification for this removal? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source citing an image from the official website "freeross.org" Iljhgtn (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website only cites freeross.org, doesn't call it official or even use the word "official" anywhere. Many articles on Trump will use photos from AP or other sources; AP would not be appropriate to put on Trump's infobox. guninvalid (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google "freeross.org" right now and tell me what the search result says. I did, and it says, "THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR ROSS ULBRICHT" (caps in original), is that not clear enough? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all a reliable source my friend. guninvalid (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this on the Teahouse in order to get an uninvolved opinion on the matter, and also according to WP:ABOUTSELF, I think we are free to use freeross.org as it appears to be the official website website for the infobox, but I encourage you to participate or add any context I may be missing. I quote, "The official Twitter account of Ross Ulbricht, linked this website, that’s a signal that they are associated with this website." Iljhgtn (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My justification is that freeross is not Ulbricht's official website and does not claim to be. He does not control the website in any way. There's not really any policy I can point to so there's no magic words for me to say, but I would say it's preferable to keep it off. guninvalid (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without a RS indicating that Ulbricht has full control of the website, it should not be included in the infobox. If there is one, it can be added again. Slothwizard (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the Teahouse discussion on that. We are inventing new policy if we believe that this BLP needs more verification or RS than has already been documented for "freeross.org" being the "official" Ross Ulbricht website. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the Teahouse discussion on this @Slothwizard? Are you satisfied for putting the website link back in the lead then per WP:ELOFFICIAL and the discussion already had over there?
Another option would be to email the public email provided at freeross.org and ask them whatever question we might need to ask to clarify this, as well as to request any language to be changed at the website itself to reflect what you may be seeking to satisfy this. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just got to it, thanks for pinging me. I see other websites are referencing freeross website and that there is no official guideline regarding websites on infoboxes. I say the website can be added back into the infobox. Thanks. Slothwizard (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: What should the first sentence refer to Ulbricht as?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus for option E. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're a week out and this hasn't been decided yet. What should the first sentence of the article read?

A: Ross William Ulbricht is an American who created and operated the darknet market Silk Road from 2011 until his arrest in 2013.
B: Ross William Ulbricht is an American man/citizen who created and operated the darknet market Silk Road from 2011 until his arrest in 2013.
C: Ross William Ulbricht is an American criminal/cybercriminal who created and operated the darknet market Silk Road from 2011 until his arrest in 2013.
D: Ross William Ulbricht is an American entrepeneur who created and operated the darknet market Silk Road from 2011 until his arrest in 2013.
E: Ross William Ulbricht is an American who created and operated the illegal darknet market Silk Road from 2011 until his arrest in 2013. (option added by @M.boli)
Other.

guninvalid (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other: In my opinion Drug trafficker matches his conviction. It would be similar to how others convicted of the same crime are described, such as Rayful Edmond. If not drug trafficker, some description of his crimes. Dw31415 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I would move the legality part: "RWU is an American citizen who created and operated the illegal darknet market Silk Road from 2011 until his arrest in 2013." Zerotalk
I like this option the most. signed, Rosguill talk 05:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C or E. Running a criminal enterprise is the one and only thing that makes Ulbricht notable. I added option E to the list, because it is congruent with the suggestion of @Zero000 and @Rosguill. -- M.boli (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E captures the most important information about Ulbricht in a clear and concise way. It plainly identifies what was illegal, which simply labeling Ulbricht as a "criminal" or "cybercriminal" does not. "Man"/"citizen" convey little to no information and should not be used. "Entrepreneur" is non-neutral because it is not how the majority of reliable sources characterize him. Jfire (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E (Summoned by bot) per MOS:FIRSTBIO. His primary reason for notability is running an illegal enterprise. If he never ran an illegal enterprise he wouldn't have been arrested and we would have no idea who he is, because there would be no article about him. TarnishedPathtalk 08:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Summoned by bot) E per Jfire. In general I think we should avoid leads that begin "Person X is a Y-ian criminal". It's not particularly informative, and it reads like the article is more focused on making sure the subject comes across negatively than on informing readers of what the subject actually did. See also MOS:CRIMINAL, linked above. 17:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Alternative: Why not merely describe him as a "programmer" or "webmaster" who founded and operated the Silk Road? Webmaster seems like the most neutral descriptor imo. ―Howard • 🌽33 20:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPOV doesn't mean we must avoid using any words with negative connotations. It means we assign weight in proportion to prominence in reliable sources. Ulbricht's notability, as established by the vast majority of reliable sources, derives from the illegal activity for which he was arrested and convicted. It's entirely appropriate to convey that in the lead sentence. Jfire (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've decided to make a survey of what sources describe him as at User:Howardcorn33/RossUlbrichtsurvey. I found the most examples describing him as a "programmer" or at least a "self-taught programmer." However I'm simply including the options in the RFC along with my personally preferred option. Feel free to comment or perform your own survey if mine is inaccurate. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If all he was was a programmer then we would have no idea who he was because their would be no article on him. MOS:FIRSTBIO states that we should note the main reason for their notability in the first sentence of the lead. Now maybe we should also include programmer in the lead, but what they are most notable for is running the illegal enterprise named the Silk Road. TarnishedPathtalk 13:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider the word "cybercriminal" to be the best option then, seeing as it combines both programmer and criminal.
    I change my vote to C. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The book Personal Cybersecurity by Marvin Waschke (2017) provides a rather good description:

    Ross Ulbricht, who called himself "Dread Pirate Roberts," was the owner of the Silk Road anonymous trading site. He is an example of a cybercriminal with a high order of expertise. [...] But Ulbricht was far from a traditional criminal. [...] Ulbricht’s case highlights the challenge in finding cybercrooks who do not act like traditional criminals.[1]

    ―Howard • 🌽33 13:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    However we have MOS:CRIMINAL which suggests that if their notability is to do with criminal activities we should say what those criminal activities were rather than merely calling them a criminal (or variation thereof) which can come across as a generic pejorative. TarnishedPathtalk 14:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider "cybercriminal" to be the most specific word to describe him, seeing as that is his entire notability and that he is frequently discussed in cybercriminological literature. Indeed, he may serve as the archetypical cybercriminal. If we wish to remove pejorative connotation then "programmer" would suffice, but using words such as "American" or "American man" unnecessarily omit information. ―Howard • 🌽33 14:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support C, if it wasn't clear. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or E. A is approx the long-term stable version until his recent pardon and only needed tweaking to make the prison sentence past tense. E specifies that Silk road was illegal, which is borderline redundant IMO, but not objectionable. Describing someone as a 'criminal' or similar is redundant when one specifies the crime committed (as we do) and borderline inaccurate in clumsily characterising that someone who commits a crime may be described as a 'criminal', (he isn't a mobster or career-criminal, he is known for having initiated one particular criminal enterprise, which we specify). BTW, I see no evidence of any discussion having taken place, prior to this RfC. Pincrete (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRIOR was #"Convicted Criminal" in the Article Lead Is Uncharitable and #Usage of "cybercriminal" or "criminal" in the first sentence. guninvalid (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • D - (Brought here from RFC/A) I think any are acceptable but choice "D" is probably the most smooth phrasing out of the selection. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C If not for his criminal conviction, and actions, no one would know who this is or even have a page. Most other pages are also worded similar. "Jeffrey Edward Epstein was an American financier and child sex offender.", "Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer was an American serial killer and sex offender...", "Bernard was an American financial criminal and financier who...", etc... ContentEditman (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E (first choice) or A (second choice). "Man" or "citizen" are clunky and redundant; he isn't notable for either of those things and his gender identity is not in question. "Criminal" and "cybercriminal" are goofy, awkward, and redundant with saying what he actually did; it's also odd for the first sentence because he's not famous for being a criminal specifically, he's famous for doing something that happened to be illegal (as opposed to eg. Jesse James, who was famous for being an outlaw; if the Silk Road had somehow been found legal by some quirk of law, Ulbricht would still be notable - its illegality is not the source of his notability.) Similarly, from the other direction, entrepreneur is non-neutral language and should be avoided unless used overwhelmingly by the sources, which is not the case here. While it is slightly clunky to call the silk road illegal, it is important context that the reader may not know (not everything on the darknet is illegal), so I prefer E over A. That said, saying he was arrested may implicitly cover that, so A is also acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment, Are there "darknet" markets that exist that are legal? I do not know. If it is the case that there are many legal "darknet markets", then I can see why "illegal" would add context as part of "Option E", however if all or most "darknet markets" are already illegal, then this is a redundant addition. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn to answer your question. Something being on the dark web, doesn't make it illegal. In fact both the CIA and the New York Times have a presence on the dark web. See this page from the NY Times. TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • CI agree with the editor above who wrote, "Running a criminal enterprise is the one and only thing that makes Ulbricht notable." I find this whole notion of sanitizing Ulbricht, the Jan 6 rioters, and the like kind of disturbing. I also like modifying the word "criminal" with the adjective "cyber" in Ulbricht's case. Selling meth, guns, etc. isn't necessarily unique, but selling them cyber-like on the internet is. It's what made Ulbricht, Ulbricht. Chisme (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • E > C > A: Running an illegal enterprise is descriptive enough, best meets MOS:CRIMINAL, and is certainly neutral, though I do not see any need to shy away from using the term criminal/cybercriminal (I don’t care which). — HTGS (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Waschke, Marvin (2017). Personal Cybersecurity: How to Avoid and Recover from Cybercrime. Berkeley, CA: Apress. p. 159–160. doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-2430-4. ISBN 978-1-4842-2429-8.

Other Ross William Ulbricht (born March 27, 1984) is an American former darknet market operator and the creator of Silk Road, an online black market primarily known for facilitating the sale of illegal drugs. Manuductive (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Judge name was deleted but it’s important.

When I read this article about a month ago, the name of the judge who sentenced Ulbright Katherine B. Forrest was in the article. Somebody deleted it. It needs to be added back. 2601:642:4C00:AE63:A825:4ED:8B68:AE9D (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ross_Ulbricht
No tags for this post.