Talk:Caroline Ellison

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

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Molochmeditates (talk). Self-nominated at 05:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: Not reviewing as I have worked on the article, but this hook is not supported by the article or by the cited source. The WSJ article cited only says that anonymous sources made the key claims here, so we cannot put them in wikivoice. (It also seems this article has passed the 7-day time limit for DYK nominations, unless I'm missing something.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agreed that this isn't a great DYK hook because of the BLP concerns. There's a big difference between reporting that sources claim X and putting it in wikivoice, especially when you're dealing with allegations of a crime. In any case, the article doesn't seem to be eligible for DYK-it needs to have been created or expanded 5x in the last 7 days. Blythwood (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe this is the first DYK nomination of Molochmeditates. We should give them a pass for the time limit. Thriley (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My bad wrt to the link. I meant to post this one: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-caroline-ellison-found-herself-at-the-center-of-the-ftx-crypto-collapse-11668899604.--Molochmeditates (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still doesn't support the claim in the hook. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the above concerns about the nomination time limit, WP:DYKSG#D9 addresses this very issue: The "seven days old" limit can be extended for a day or two upon request. If the nominator is new to DYK, a seven-day extension may be allowed. Since the article was created on 12 November and nominated early on 21 November, that's two days, so I think we can take the "upon request" as given; indeed, if this is their first nomination, we have more leeway than that. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i picked this bio for a school project because it has a lot of problems and some of them are pretty bad so far. i dont think she should be featured on the home page until her bio is in better shape even if its not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleNow (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    also dont think sbf should be in there. there's other things about her that are interesting. she was in forbes 30 under 30. Forbes called her "a rare female leader in a male dominated industry". she was captain of the math team in high school and won 2nd place in Boston's math league. Took MIT math classes while in high school. gave her dad a statistical analysis of toy prices at 8. prize-winning math scholar. something like "that Caroline Ellison, ex-CEO of Alameda Research who plead guilty in the FTX fraud, earned top honors at the 2008 American Mathematics Competition?" even with the fraud stuff there's stuff like in Aug she told Bloomberg that Alameda didn't "get any different treatment from other market makers" but told law enforcement that she knew about the fraud since 2019. WhaleNow (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full review needed, though the BLP issues and hook sourcing will need to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The link is this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-tapped-into-customer-accounts-to-fund-risky-bets-setting-up-its-downfall-11668093732. From the article, "Alameda’s CEO is Caroline Ellison, a Stanford University graduate who like Mr. Bankman-Fried previously worked for quantitative trading firm Jane Street Capital", "FTX Chief Executive Sam Bankman-Fried said in investor meetings this week that Alameda owes FTX about $10 billion, people familiar with the matter said". The age part is from the rest of the sources in the biography, but happy to remove that. Would be more helpful to know which parts of the hook are being disputed instead of generic comments like "doesn't support the claim in the hook". --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The key phrase here is "people familiar with the matter said". The WSJ is not actually saying that Alameda borrowed $10 billion from FTX, it is only saying that unspecified anonymous sources said Alameda owes FTX $10 billion. So we cannot say in wikivoice that Alameda borrowed $10 billion from FTX. Since this is a hook about a living person, we need to be especially careful, and WP:BLPGOSSIP specifically advises us: "Be wary of relying on sources [...] that attribute material to anonymous sources." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is something she has actually stated, perhaps on video, that would be a good hook? Thriley (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 that Caroline Ellison, the former CEO of Alameda Research and a close associate of Sam Bankman-Fried, believes that “a lot of crypto projects don’t have much real value”? from this NY Times article:[1] Thriley (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 that Caroline Ellison, ex-CEO of Alameda Research who plead guilty in the FTX fraud, was a National Merit scholarship recipient in 2012? Newtonite — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhaleNow (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A full review is still needed. The article has been greatly expanded and revised since the beginning of December. Issues noted above should be checked to see that they have been addressed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t think ALT2 is at all interesting. There are thousands of national Merit Scholars each year. Thriley (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BlueMoonset: in my experience, the extent to which DYK standards are enforced in practice tends to decrease the longer a discussion drags on – people tend to want discussions to just end, and they're more likely to go "good enough" if they're getting tired of the drag-out. This is a very fraught BLP, and I don't think waiting to see who picks this up first is a good idea. Two+ months of non-involvement from the nominator is more than enough grounds for a close; I'll defer to you on the final decision, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Theleekycauldron: The article appears to be in good shape. I’m not sure why the nominator has disappeared. It would be a shame to lose the nomination as it is their first. Thriley (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think ALT2 also violates the spirit if not the letter of the rule against "hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals". ALT1 would be okay, but it's not mentioned in the article. After many weeks without substantive progress or participation from the nominator, I agree with User:Theleekycauldron that it's reasonable to close as failed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2023[edit]

In the section, Legal proceedings, it states, A transcript of her plea heading was unsealed on December 23, in which she admitted to judge Ronnie Abrams that [SNIP]. I suspect that should be hearing, not heading. Also, I suggest that in which be replaced with revealing and had be inserted between she and admitted. —71.105.243.101 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restitution?[edit]

Caroline Ellison appears to have dropped off the radar after her plea bargain. Presumably she'll testify against Bankman-Fried at his October 2023 trial, but I find it curious that the court-ordered restitution has vanished into the ether. kencf0618 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Ellison&oldid=1214525933"