Talk:Caroline Ellison/Archive 1

Archive 1

More info

Caroline ran an apparently "bizzare" tumblr, and was in a polygamous relationship with others involved in FTX. 2600:1000:B03A:3D13:314A:3331:41D0:5E1F (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't have enough citations for this claim from reliable sources. Molochmeditates (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I actually mentioned that she identified as polyamorous in the article but another editor felt that the citation was weak and removed it. I think it could be put back now we have a better source from The Guardian. (Alex Hern is a great reporter, but in this case he really didn't need to do more than look at backups of her Tumblr.) Although I know a lot of people are having a lot of fun on Twitter with the idea that the company's management was one big polycule, I haven't seen any reliable sourcing to that specific effect, and I wouldn't support including it in the article. Blythwood (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is giving me the horrible realisation that we're going to have a big discussion at some point about if various cryptocurrency websites are reliable sources. Hopefully someone will steal it all before then and then we can forget about the topic. Blythwood (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Crypto is still under general sanctions, see WP:GS/CRYPTO. If CoinDesk isn't considered an RS, most other crypto news sites won't either. Molochmeditates (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur. The bad news is that separating the wheat from the chaff is problematic; the good news is that we don't have to. Not only is there the financial press, there's the peer-reviewed (and aptly named) Ledger, the next issue of which focuses on blockchain technology/infrastructure. As for Caroline Ellison, we wait on reliable sources. Like her attorney Stephanie Avakian. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-10/caroline-ellison-hires-sec-s-former-top-crypto-cop-for-ftx-probe?sref=MTy2GeXk kencf0618 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Caroline Ellison of Alameda Research.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove vandalism

Can someone revert this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Ellison&diff=1128967620&oldid=1128967218 It breaches Wikipedia's neutrality. Also interesting the edit was by a registered account, as usually it's IP edit behaviour. 119.18.1.17 (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

Please remove the "ugly" from the very first sentence: "[..] is an ugly American former business executive." Ptaele (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Thanks, TwoTwoHello. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

high school tweak

"As a high school student, she attended Newton North High School and represented the US in the 2011 International Linguistics Olympiad." → "As a Newton North High School student, Ellison represented the US in the 2011 International Linguistics Olympiad." WhaleNow (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC) WhaleNow (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

birth year 1994

add Ellison born 1994

References

WhaleNow (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done (i didnt realize i could edit her bio) WhaleNow (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

hometown tweak

§Early life and education

Move to first sentence and change:

She grew up in the Boston suburbs. → Ellison was born in Boston and grew up in the suburbs: Cambridge and Newton.

References

WhaleNow (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done WhaleNow (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Is the word felon necessary in the opening sentence? As an example neither Derek Chauvin nor George Floyd include that label in the opening sentence. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:18D2:E352:2C0C:561B (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, her guilty plea was only entered yesterday, and court proceedings are far from concluded. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

She has pleaded guilty to all counts; my understanding is that the conviction comes later. I'll try to get my hands on the transcript, i.e. the court record. kencf0618 (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion. Thank you for cleaning up the previous label. Would you take a look at RaspberryCandy edit? The edit looks childish. 8 references to support name calling? All of these references are based on a single source that is the plea deal. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:584E:C05A:8189:4561 (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed, for the same reasons, and at most a moderate number of references go in the body of the article, and are not just there to budgeon the readers and editors with the marks of great justice. BLP always applies. Acroterion (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Alameda Research description at top

I doon't think Alameda Research should be described as "a quantitative trading firm founded by Sam Bankman-Fried". Whys SBF in the second sentence of the top? On SBF its only described as a cryptocurrency trading firm. I think Ellison's role in Alameda research is what she is notable for and Alameda research is notable for being connected to FTX and the bankruptcy and fraud. I think it should be changed to "bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange FTX's sister qualitative trading firm". WhaleNow (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC) WhaleNow (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I've rephrased as "Alameda Research, a quantitative trading firm affiliated with FTX". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Questionable birth date source

Webb-site Who’s Who is a database that compiles data from public records. I think this violates the policy to not use public records as a source for personal details and should be removed. WhaleNow (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC) WhaleNow (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done as a precaution. If anyone wants to defend the reliability of Webb-site Who’s Who and its usability under WP:BLPPRIVACY, please discuss here. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

junior trader for 19 months?

the ref for this is eFinancialCareers, but this is not a job title at Jane Street. googling this term with Ellison leads to circular references of wp or forum discussions using it to make it seem like she wasn't very smart. all the high quality sources say she was hired as a quantitative equities trader out of uni. she had done 2 internships while at Stanford at trading firms and she would have been a trading analyst or an assistant trader. she also said she had 1.5 years of trading experience when she joined Alameda. cant trade until you have 1-1.5 years of experience training with mock trades. SBF was her mentor when she joined Jane Street. i think "junior" should be removed and replaced with "equities"

Fortune Boston Globe Yahoo 

WhaleNow (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC) WhaleNow (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done WhaleNow (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Charges and plea at top

I think this is missing context to link Ellison's charges to Alameda. pAragraph 2 at the top does explain it but it seems out of date and is confusing to read after her plea. I think it would flow better if the order was changed to: American business executive → former CEO of Alameda → Alameda:FTX business relationship → Alameda:FTX illegal financial relationship → bankruptcy & firing → detail of charges and plea WhaleNow (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC) WhaleNow (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you trying to edit 2nd paragraph? 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:94B3:1B03:848F:2538 (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

rewrite in a different order theres already 2 paragraphs WhaleNow (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Please provide the detail in change x->y next time! Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

sbf/ellison

@Mx. Granger: i think many articles said the same but in forbes: "After Stanford, Ellison became a trader at Jane Street, where she met Bankman-Fried. They bonded over their mutual interest in effective altruism."

pretty sure i added that WhaleNow (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that source, which was not cited in the article after the sentence in question. Feel free to re-add the claim if you cite that source. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

my bad. i have some trouble with the editor code. fixed it WhaleNow (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"American former business executive" description

SBF: an entrepreneur and investor not former. Gary Wang: an American executive. Whys she being described as former? Her plea agreement doesnt prevent her from working in the future as a business executive. I think it should be consistent with SBF's and Wang's with just "American business executive". WhaleNow (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC) WhaleNow (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It looks like User:Cpotisch has re-added the word "former". Cpotisch, could you please explain why? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't see that this had already been talked about. Considering that she resigned her post and is likely headed to prison for at least some amount of time, it seems reasonable to call it "former". Whether or not she is technically eligible to hold a similar post in the future seems irrelevant. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

she did not resign from her career. she was terminated from her role at FTX. she has not been sentenced. is it widely speculated she is likely headed to prison? idk i'd need to see the wide speculation from sources. I can only find this being used when the career can't continue (ie, former child actor because they are adults, former boxer because they retired, former stockbroker because they are legally barred from brokering stocks). the blp policy says not to use imprecise language to describe living people and in that policy the word former is in one of the bad examples. Barack Obama is not serving in a government position, but he is still described as an American politician.

i still think it should be removed and don't think speculation about prison time is a good enough reason to restore it. WhaleNow (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cpotisch also whyd you mark the edit as minor? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit: "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor." WhaleNow (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cpotisch since its been > 24h i am removing the word former. if you want to discuss again please do so w/o revert. WhaleNow (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. The most recent New York Times article on her specifically describes her as a "former executive", so I have restored it. If you can find RS calling her a "business executive" since her ouster, we can talk further about removing it. There was never any consensus to remove the word in the first place, so I don't think I was in the wrong for restoring it. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

there was consensus between Mx. Granger and me, that's why they deleted it. can you please link the source and the entire quote? i cant find it. WhaleNow (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

From citation 4:

"A former top executive at a trading firm closely tied to FTX said she was “truly sorry” for defrauding customers, investors and lenders in pleading guilty to criminal charges stemming from the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange last month.

“I knew that it was wrong,” Caroline Ellison, the former executive, told a federal judge in Manhattan on Monday in entering her guilty plea, according to a transcript of the hearing that was unsealed on Friday."

Best, Cpotisch (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

thx for that. sorry for the late reply, I wanted to talk about this issue with my class before continuing.

context is key, and you are bolding one part of a sentence that removes the context NYT is describing her as a former top executive at a trading firm closely tied to FTX.

it is not common to describe someone as former in their description unless they are retired from the career (by choice or not). our prof pointed out MOS:FIRSTBIO, MOS:ROLEBIO, MOS:JOB and MOS:BLPTENSE and a guideline that the first mention should be the most objective, precise sentence in the article. this means she is most objectively and precisely described as an American business executive and quant trader; and former CEO of Alameda Research.

the reliable sources do not refer to Ellison as a former executive, they describe her as a former executive at Alameda Research. i cannot find another example on wikipedia where someone is described as "former x" unless that person is verifiably retired from the career because of choice, injury, or legally.

can you agree? if not, can you please share several examples of other people described as "former x" when it's not verifiable that they have retired and policy you think supports breaking this norm? WhaleNow (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@WhaleNow: Is there a page on Wiki for your course? Thriley (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

no why WhaleNow (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Student assignments: “ Each assignment should have a course page.” Has your professor overseen student editing before? It’s really best to follow the guidelines with student editing. Thriley (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

i will chat w/ prof about this tomorrow WhaleNow (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It’s really helpful to be able to review course work this way. It integrates everyone into the editing community far better than having the students doing it independently without a central page. Thriley (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

my prof said he doesnt for this class cuz its not only about wikipedia and this assignment is supposed to give us our own sense of how accessible editing is to people. ʅ(._.)ʃ sry if thats not helpful but i told him what you said WhaleNow (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your professor should be following the guidelines. Please tell him to do so next time. Thriley (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request while consensus is being worked on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

relationship rumors

@M.nelson i dont understand your reason for reverting. I replaced the wsj ref with an interview sbf did with abc news. i think sbf's account of their relationship is better than rumors. WhaleNow (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The WSJ ref is superior to the interview because it's a secondary source, published and backed up by a reliable publication, whereas an interview with SBF is a primary source. The WSJ ref is verifying the relationship itself, whereas the interview can only be used to verify SBF's statement itself about the relationship. And given the potential consequences for SBF, I suspect all of his media comments are entirely self-serving (intended to protect his reputation and improve his chances in upcoming litigation), meaning they should be avoided per WP:BLPSELFPUB. -M.nelson (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

im sorry but i dont understand your argument. what consequences would sbf be avoiding by denying the rumors they were in a polyamorous relationship? wsj doesn't verify their relationship. it says "according to former employees". these are all secondary sources, they are both reliable. ("There is consensus that ABC News, the news division of the American Broadcasting Company, is generally reliable. It is not to be confused with other publications of the same name.")

are you saying that this:

"He was at times romantically involved with Caroline Ellison, the 28-year-old CEO of his trading firm, Alameda Research, according to former employees."

&

"Among the named members of Bankman-Fried's inner circle were Caroline Ellison, Alameda's current CEO. Ellison was the only employee CoinDesk singled out for having reportedly dated Bankman-Fried at one point, but no other specific past or present relationships were disclosed."

is better than this:

"In the interview, Bankman-Fried also denied he witnessed any illegal drug use by FTX employees, and he said reports that he and Ellison were in a polyamorous relationship are false and his romantic relationship with Ellison lasted only six months. "I've been running FTX for the last few years. That doesn't leave a whole lot of time for a dating life for me," he said."

&

"He also told ABC News that he and Ellison had been in a romantic relationship in the past, but that it had only lasted six months. Ellison hasn't commented publicly since leaving Alameda Research."

because one is wsj and "according to former employees"? cuz wsj did not verify their relationship. they said that former employees said they were at times romantically involved.

im thinking it maybe should be removed then if a rumor from former co-workers is a better account of a supposed relationship than someone who was in it. WhaleNow (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first two sources are better than the latter two. An interview with SBF is a WP:PRIMARY source which is inferior to WP:SECONDARY, WP:RELIABLE sources. -M.nelson (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

sorry for the late reply, I wanted to talk about this issue with my class before continuing.

i am still lost on why you are saying abc news and this BI article are primary and not reliable. THey both are listed as green/reliable in the table. they both are secondary sources. The interview was with George Stephanopoulo on Good Morning America, the article from abc news was written by Mark Guarino. the article from BI is from Aaron Mok. these both satisfy WP:RELIABLE and WP:SECONDARY.

my prof pointed to WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL, but idk that those really matter. i think it's more a matter of personal freedom that sbf and ellison should get to discuss the terms of their relationship and avoid linking to the poly rumors especially when there are newer sources that don't do that. WP:RECENT i think is the right policy to consider. WhaleNow (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

since you havent answered, i tried to follow the BRD process with a refinement that includes both the rumors and sbf's statements. WhaleNow (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

poly rumors

she has not said that she is poly so i deleted it WhaleNow (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

the catergory i meant. i put the reports of the rumor in a note WhaleNow (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

tumblr/poly claim?

should the article say that she has never confirmed it was hers? confirmation came from a "close associate" and others said it must be hers because it linked to her Twitter. im not saying its not hers, but without her confirmation, it seems like it might violate policy. the claim goes steps further saying "She wrote on her Tumblr blog that she has explored polyamory". even if we know the tumblr account belonged to her, it doesnt mea she was the only writer or that it was autobiographical. i dont think this should be in her biography unless she confirms she has explored poly. WhaleNow (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC) WhaleNow (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done removed poly claim and added what sources say instead WhaleNow (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi WhaleNow, thanks for these comments. I certainly agree that BLP editing is one of the most difficult things we do on here. However, I wonder if this is going in the right direction. I'm not really seeing any sourcing that the writing on the Tumblr was "widely criticized". My impression was that people were interested in what light it threw on her values and state of mind, but I don't see any sourcing to that effect. In general, when dealing with fraudsters and imposters, we report what reliable sources say. You could compare with the articles on George Santos and Nicholas Rossi. Reliable sources like Alex Hern at The Guardian say that this was her Tumblr and show no suggestion that anyone else ever posted on it. But do you have sourcing otherwise? Still, I think you're doing amazing work thinking through the details of this article. Blythwood (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

thx for the kudo. that's the only 1 that says it's hers w/o saying she never admitted to it or w/e, the rest do. i think even tho 1 source says it was hers w/o question, ignoring 10+ others that dont could be a constitutional problem. the word criticized might be wrong or i didnt add the critical refs. ill delete that and go back to my bibliography for school and tweak it again w/ your thoughts in mind. im done with this assignment so it might be a min. thx again for being nice and helping. WhaleNow (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)