Talk:Vitalik Buterin

Things to do

As ColonelHenry has noted, there are several things to be done on this page. Certainly links to other projects should be provided, and the citations should be cleaned up. Just to be clear, I did not write any of the sources, and do not think the article is fringe. I have never met Buterin and have never talked or communicated with him. He is a worthy subject for a Wikipedia page. Sanpitch (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• The reference to WP:FRINGE I should have explained...while I advocate for Bitcoin, it and some of the associated ideology is considered fringe from a conventional political and economic standpoint, and extra caution should be exercised in writing the article with regards to WP:NPOV policy, and WP:BLP because of the issues associated those views. WP:BITCOIN seems rather inactive, and there aren't many comparable articles, so I can't recommend anyone who can give you some feedback.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I added links to the page from other articles where Buterin was already cited, added a link to an Ars Technica article, and changed a ref to make it more obvious that it's to the New Yorker. I removed the orphan warning. Sanpitch (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the multiple issues tag, which included a "blpsources" tag, and a "cleanup tag" that mentioned "WP:FRINGE" and "WP:GNG".

Regarding the "blpsources" template, I have edited the article, and I think every detail in the article text is verifiable through reliable sources, except for a press release cited for two sentences. The press release is is admittedly a primary source produced by the Ethereum Project, but one sentence is uncontroversial (that Buteran spoke at a conference), and the other explicitly attributes claims to the organization (i.e., "...the project's promoters announced..."). Perhaps some or all of this should be altered or removed, I'm certainly open to input, but it's a minor aspect of the article and I don't think negates removal of the "blpsources" when every other sentences cites independent reliable sources.

Regarding the "cleanup" template's mention of FRINGE, while I agree that some cryptocurrency ideology can be considered fringe, I don't think there are any fringe claims made in this article. The article sticks primarily to biographical facts, with some detour to describe Ethereum in more detail. I think a very fair criticism is that it delves too deeply into Ethereum, considering Buterin seems to be just one of four cofounders, which is my fault, and while that paragraph should probably be scaled back, it still seems well-grounded in facts, citing reputable sources. (Acknowledging that New Scientist can be sensationalistic at times).

Regarding the "cleanup" template's mention of GNG, notability is still a subjective, open issue, but the question is already being considered in the Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion, and is prominently displayed in the article. I think that's adequate for now, and after a decision is reached it will be moot (either the article will be gone, or notability will no longer be in dispute). I have no objection if someone wants to add a notability template to the article, I just don't think it's necessary or useful at this point.

Agyle (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: I trimmed the Ethereum section, removed the press release cite & associated info, and removed info from another press release that I mistakenly thought was a Reuters article (it was carried on reuters.com, but labeled as a press release). I did add another primary source, About Us from bitcoinmagazine.com, to clarify that it's both a website & print magazine, and that Buterin is listed as head writer (third party sources identify him only as co-founder and a writer). Agyle (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Vitalik here

Hey all, Vitalik here.

For very obvious reasons I will not try to influence the content of the article. However, I will neutrally provide two things as help:

1. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/01/ethereum/ is a secondary source that might replace some of the primary sources cited in the current article

2. As far as images go, I hereby release https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/vSKgBCG7YsPpghCHi5LwqoypGt6oQZn0CUoY7_1Qda4=w755-h566-no and http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/b6f50b2145526621375de989ce8e1cec?s=200&d=&r=G into the public domain, and under the CC0 license in all cases where total surrender of copyright is unenforceable.

Vbuterin (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2014‎

Thanks Vitalik! I added the Wired article and a Coindesk article and removed all the primary sources. Sanpitch (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks; pointers to any other useful independent sources could be helpful. If you do wish to make any edits, guidance on that issue is at WP:BLPEDIT; in a nutshell, “Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.” And even “discourages” doesn't mean “prohibits”.

While much appreciated, I don't think your image release above is adequate for Wikipedia's purposes (anyone could claim to be you). While it doesn't seem much different than uploading an image through commons.wikimedia.org and checking the boxes of legalese to release images as CC0, it's probably one of those bureaucratic fine print things. If your Wikipedia login already works on commons.wikimedia.org (they used to be separate, but are now generally combined), it would probably take you under five minutes to work through the process of uploading the images there (protips: "Upload image" is on the left of side of main page, uploaded file names are retained (you may want to pick a meaningful name like vitalik-buterin.jpg), and there's a step where you have to click "show other licenses" to display a CC0 checkbox...for some reason the UI favors CC's Attribution-Share Alike license).

Agyle (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Other sources

These are primary sources, but may be used as reliable sources for certain things (see WP:WPNOTRS).

• "Roger Ver, Erik Voorhees and Vitalik Buterin join KryptoKit in ownership roles" (Press release). Toronto: KryptoKit (via Marketwired). 5 January 2014.
• "Ethereum listens to community, releasing testnet prior to raising funds" (Press release). Toronto: Ethereum Project (via Marketwired). 29 January 2014.
• Youtube Intro to Ethereum video with Buterin

I don't consider these reliable sources, but they may provide information to search for from reliable sources.

• fusion.net Article on Buterin & Ethereum
• medium.com Article mostly about Ethereum
• testdriver.ro Video interview

Agyle (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why the aversion to calling Ethereum a "cryptocurrency" platform?

Ethereum is mostly used for ETH to be speculated upon. This is also the main verifiable observable use Buterin himself puts it to! (per [1][2] "sound financial planning"). "publishing platform" in the first sentence of this article is actively misleading - there are no notable uses of Ethereum for publishing. Even the smart contracts are most notable in RSes for their hypothetical possibilities.

Why are advocates so averse to the word "cryptocurrency" around Ethereum? - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this Vitalik Buterin page shouldn't be making statements about if Ethereum is a publishing platform or if it is a cryptocurrency (or if it is both), as this is in dispute (or at least there is a misunderstanding about it). I think that discussion is more relevant at the Ethereum page. The aversion to calling it a cryptocurrency maybe stems from the fact that Buterin has repeatedly referred to it as not being a cryptocurrency. According to my understanding Ether (ETH) is the cryptocurrency component of Ethereum (a blockchain software platform). Thus Ether is a subset of the superset Ethereum (which is the turing complete language), and as you point out in this case the subset may be more well known than the superset. Ether is used to pay bockchain hosts (aka miners) to host your software (smart contracts) on their servers which are running Ethereum software. This is different from say Bitcoin where the nodes (miners) don't allow user's software to be hosted. There is some nuance to that, which belongs in the description. Buterin's sale of his ETH he describes it as logical under Diversification (finance), per the links you have provided (thus I don't see how it is connected to the subset/superset discussion). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

David, I copied your text and started a discussion over at Talk:Ethereum#Ether_vs._Ethereum hoping to get more feedback there. Hope that is ok. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

A few sources on Buterin to potentially improve the article:

• Blockchains—The great chain of being sure about things, The Economist, 31 October 2015.
• Vitalik Buterin on His Long-Term Goals for Ethereum, Bitcoin Magazine, 4 May 2016.
• One blockchain to rule them all, The Economist—Babbage, audio interview on Soundcloud, Buterin portion starts at 6:40.

— N2e (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy

From the article:

Buterin was born in Kolomna, Moscow Oblast, Russia and lived in the area until the age of six when his parents emigrated to Canada in search of better employment opportunities.

Fortune's article :

Dmitry, who had divorced Vitalik’s mother, moved to Toronto in 1999. Buterin followed a few months later.

--46.147.164.155 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

2016 article on Buterin in Canadian Business

• This 2016 article in Canadian Business includes info on the Thiel Fellowship Buterin was awarded and the stipend amount (US$ 100,000) that fellowship offered when he dropped out of University of Waterloo—http://www.canadianbusiness.com/innovation/change-agent/vitalik-buterin-ethereum/ N2e (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@N2e: Good content, thank you. I have added some of the content to the article. Interesting how he learned about bitcoin from his father. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the page mention his creation of bit torrent

According to this interview with Vitalik he developed the bit torrent p2p network, worth mentioning? [3] 80.169.113.194 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems he didn't say that (but we would need an RS anyhow) https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/2c1r53/3_minute_explanation_of_ethereum_by_inventor/ Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External Links

This article has no external links. Some proposed links:

Vitalik has a certified Twitter feed https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin with 276K followers as of this writing. Is there any reason not to link to the subject's Twitter feed?

Vitalik has a website http://vitalik.ca/

A presentation by Vitalik: Devcon2: Ethereum in 25 Minutes - YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66SaEDzlmP4

--Phersh (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Phersh: Great suggestions, at very least I agree with it... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed my opinion on this, I do not support a link to youtube videos. Twitter might be ok, and certainly, his website in the infobox is good. But youtube videos, he has hundreds of them I guess, so how are we supposed to pick the right one? I guess there must also be some policy on this as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

2017/18 articles on Buterin and Ethereum Russia

Not sure if and where we should add these news about the deal to create Ethereum Russia last year (2017), and the Russian banks involved. It is certainly true now (June 2018), that Russia indeed will develop a new payment system based on Ethereum blockchain technology ( I don't have the expertise to know that this is actually a cryptocurrency, from what I read it is just to circumvent SWIFT). Maybe someone can provide input and work with me on that. Should it be a biographical note here or shall I elaborate on the Etherum entries for the company/foundation? It should be updated, it seems important to the current political situation also, meaning that Buterin and the Russian leadership consult each other on these matters. I will use good sources and keep it concise. Osterluzei (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see the content on the talk page here first. It has to be very neutral though, this is a WP:BLP. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Somehow my expansion was deleted but I used reliable sources, the quotes were verified. I am undoing the deletion. Osterluzei (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please help to keep the expansion on Ethereum Russia alive; it's very relevant. I checked for better sources and wrote only what I could directly reference in the articles. Too bad I had to let the reddit comments go, how else should we keep track of what people say unless there is an interview of this person by a major press outlet. Osterluzei (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't keep track of what people say. We only should describe what reliable sources say (major press outlets, as you put it). Retimuko (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Lock

@MER-C: we having issues with vandalism on this BLP that is also the subject of a quite famous/controversial founder of Ethereum. Might be worth to watch and consider putting a lock on the article if it continues. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the article in the past - but it's at the stage of one such contribution being revision-deleted. So as a basic WP:BLP consideration, I've put three months' semi-protection on the article. If anyone strongly objects, I'm happy to alter this, or have anyone else do so.

Or indeed perhaps an uninvolved admin should permanently semi-protect it under GS/Crypto - WP:RFPP is the usual place to request protection - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

LEDE promote

@HocusPocus00: i reverted your edit to add some 'Ethereum is the second largest, etc' text the lede of this article. Doesn't seem necessary to me, we already link to the Ethereum article. You mentioned this on my talk page, but better to discuss here so others will see it. There has already been a long discussion here Talk:Cryptocurrency#Biased_list_of_altcoins about adding rankings, and other promotional text to the lede of that article, seem this article is no different. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I think WP:PROMO was the wrong reason to remove the edit. I think Ethereum needs a bit more explanation in the lead of this article. That's what I'm trying to get at. Folks might come to this page and see that he co-founded "Ethereum" alone in a vacuum with no additional information in the lead and not understand its importance/notability. For example, the intro for Elon Musk goes into what each of his companies are briefly because people might not know what The Boring Company is for example. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

We link to Ethereum already. We don't need it is the biggest, best, etc. We went though all of this same discussion in what I linked to above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:Why? A sentence explaining that Ethereum is the second largest/most active blockchain shows why Vitalik is notable. The discussion you linked above was on the cryptocurrency page and contributors there had concerns about listing different altcoins as examples out of fear of potential bias. This is Vitalik Buterin's page, who is the creator of Ethereum. Why can Ethereum not be discussed in detail? It is not WP:PROMO which is why you deleted the edit. So what then is your basis for removing the edit? The reality is: Ethereum exists, it is the second largest cryptocurrency by market cap, and it is the most actively used blockchain. These are FACTS. And well cited. They are not opinions or advertisements. The edit did not say it was the "best" blockchain. You cannot censor Wikipedia just because you do not like the information for whatever reason. This is insanity. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to add additional weight in the lede to the perceived importance of Ethereum (rankings, etc). This feels to me like a rehash of the discussion we had above on the other talk page we had with Ladislav Mecir. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a need. He's the co-founder of one of the largest blockchains and it's the reason why he is notable and why this article exists independently on Wikipedia. It seems like you are ignoring your WP:PROMO claim which was your reason you deleted my edit. Now you just want the information deleted because you don't think it's needed. This isn't how Wikipedia works. The discussion you keep bringing up that we had on the cryptocurrency page related to that article and is unrelated (it was a discussion about whether we should have an example list of alt coins on that page). If we want to have a separate discussion here about this edit, we can. But outright deletion of pertinent, reliably sourced, and neutrally written material is disruptive. WP:REMOVECITE. I'm putting this information back. If you want to discuss this edit further, we can. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove the cite in my edit. The other discussion and this discussion are both about you wanting to add rankings of cryptocurrency (in this case #2) and on the other article seeking to add altcoins to the lede based upon a ranking. You could not find consensus to do that over at Cryptocurrency, and yet you are now adding it here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

A few things to unpack here: in the cryptocurrency page discussion, folks were concerned about an example list of alt coins being biased. I proposed listing the top 5 coins by market cap. People there shot that idea down because they thought the top 5 changed frequently, which was fair. This is different discussion. We are talking about what makes Vitalik notable. Market capitalization of his invention is extremely important. Almost every Wikipedia page for large companies lists their total equity/market capitalization. Why? Because it is one of the most illustrative ways to show how large a company (or cryptocurrency) is. Bitcoin has entire sections of articles devoted to its price. How is this any different? HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin we look at historic price (in the past), thus there is no issue for editors to manage history, since it has already occurred. That is what we do at wikipedia. Managing current ranking is a different matter (today vs. the past). Uniswap article also has a similar ranking issue in the lede. All of this is in the general genre of pushing undue weight towards subjects. Buterin is notable bc he created the second largest crypto, Uniswap is notable bc it is the 4th largest decentralised exchange, xyx altcoins are notable because of market cap. This is all pushing weight from my view. @David Gerard: care to comment? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you're stirring up a lot here over some minor semantics. Would you feel more comfortable if the article said "is the second largest cryptocurrency by market cap as of January 2021"? I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to help build this page out. I can make a similar change to Uniswap as well. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify why I cited WP:REMOVECITE above: See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, Jtbobwaysf. The promotional claims do not belong to encyclopedia, especially when they are not really lasting characteristics as confirmed even by the cited sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Please explain how this is WP:PROMO. Have you reviewed the Bloomberg/Fortune cites? Because it seems like you haven't. They state very clearly that Ethereum is the second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap and the most actively used. These are not controversial facts. They are not opinions. It is not an advertisement. They are notable facts. Instead, it seems more and more likely every day that you all are attempting to whitewash articles on Wikipedia about information relating to alternate cryptocurrencies. You did it on the cryptocurrency article, and now, ridiculously, you are attempting to remove information about Ethereum on the article about Vitalik, the founder. User Jtbobwaysf has been topic banned for conduct similar to this before. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Ladislav Mecir has now reverted my edit which is written in NPOV, and supported by two WP:RS (Bloomberg and Fortune), claiming it is WP:PROMO. However, like Jtbobwaysf, there has been no explanation as to how this edit is promotional or an advertisement. These deletions are extremely disruptive to the article and in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. HocusPocus00 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I already explained what was wrong with the part I deleted. Consult WP:ICANTHEARYOU, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't explain anything: elaborate please on how it is WP:PROMO. I proposed a compromise above regarding the issue of the possibility of ETH at some point not being the most actively used/2nd largest chain (which is frankly ridiculous in the first place to have to change the edit), but that has fallen on deaf ears. You cited ICANTHEARYOU but this isn't consensus, it's just you two from the Bitcoin articles ganging up and removing edits regarding alternate cryptocurrencies again. Does the sentence like the one I proposed above work? "is the most actively used and second largest cryptocurrency by market cap as of January 2021" HocusPocus00 (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus. Seems to me we are re-hashing the same discussion we had before, adding promotional text regarding the ranking of Ethereum. Whatever the rank of Ethereum, Vitalik is quite notable and I suspect that will persist regardless if Ethereum is #1 or #100. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying it is promotional text without explaining why you believe it is promotional. They are facts, not advertisements. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors on other articles are even confused as to why you want to delete this information. See Talk:Uniswap#Rankings. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, what consensus?! Furthermore, you are still not addressing my compromise to use WP:ASOF language. The more I think about it, the more I think it is ridiculous to even make this compromise since Ethereum has been the 2nd largest cryptocurrency for basically the last 5 years. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:, @Ladislav Mecir: Any objection to the compromise presented above which utilizes typical WP:ASOF language? It seems Jtbobwaysf has compromised on this issue on the Uniswap page. HocusPocus00 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't support the promo text here on this article. It is not necessary. I supported it on uniswap as it helps explain the article subject. Here we have another article Ethereum to link to (that is a long and substantial article), thus I don't support the ranking here on on the main Ethereum article. This is the third article that you are now advocating for ranking text (that I have seen), and in general I don't support it. Uniswap I found the text useful as it explains the noteworthiness of the article, and also had a grade A source for it. Here I don't see that, nor would it help the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This Fortune article isn't a "Grade A" source to show that ETH is the second most valuable cryptocurrency!? Bloomberg mentioned it again yesterday! Also the reason you likely found it useful on Uniswap is because it helps readers understand notability. The reason it's important here is because it shows why Vitalik is notable. Please note that most people outside of crypto have no idea who Vitalik is or why he is important. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you didn't answer whether you support the new language that I proposed. Now it seems like you just don't want the information in the article because you don't think it's "necessary." Your arguments keep shifting. First you believed it was a WP:PROMO (which you still haven't elaborated on), then you said it would be tough to update if ETH fell from the #2 spot (which I said we could use WP:ASOF text and you haven't responded to), and it appears now you're saying you don't want it in the article just... because. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no question to Vitalik's notability. We would not say "Larry Ellison is the founder of the 2nd largest enterprise software company Oracle', nor would we do it for Microsoft. If Ethereum has a wiki article itself we understand the Ethereum article is notable. I believe ranking of cryptocurrencies on wikipedia is promotional in itself, I don't know how else I would elaborate on that. Why are we rehashing the same discussion we had over at the Ethereum article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not what WP:PROMO is. WP:PROMO is an opinion, advocacy or advertisement. How is this that? It's just additional information. Further, it's not "ranking" Ethereum, it's saying it's the second largest blockchain, an indication of notability. I think we are approaching an impasse here, but the edit should be replaced because WP:PROMO is an incorrect premise for the removal of the information. If consensus is to remove the information later (and consensus isn't just 2 vs 1 when we're still debating the issue), then it can be removed. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Re "you didn't explain anything" - that is just a WP:ICANTHEARYOU argument. As to the claim that "[Ethereum] is the most actively used and second largest cryptocurrency by market cap as of January 2021":

• even if it was a fact, the subject of the article is not Ethereum
• it is not true that there are two sources that confirm the wording. There is just one source saying that "[Ethereum] is the most actively used..." and another one source saying that "[Ethereum] is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization...". The claim you push using the WP:ICANTHEARYOU approach is just a WP:SYNTH of these two. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(1) Vitalik created Ethereum so that it why it is important here to mention it here; (2) I don't quite understand what you're saying regarding the cites. This Bloomberg cite says Ethereum is the most actively used, and this Fortune cite says it's the second largest cryptocurrency. Also stop citing WP:ICANTHEARYOU, I've literally listened to and discussed every one of your guys' arguments (which there basically are none). That's the point of the Talk page. It is to reach consensus, not to bully others into an idea by shutting them up.

And guess what, you're STILL not explaining how this is promotional/WP:PROMO which is why you deleted it from the article. Now you are saying that even though it is (1) irrelevant information, which it's not and not (2) not properly cited, not properly cited. Your arguments guys keep shifting around it's hard to keep up with so I'll summarize below. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I havent counted, but there must be 20 or 30 messages about your objective to adding cryptocurrency rankings to articles to justify notability. In this case you are seeking to add it to the creator's article (Vitalik), as we also objected on the Cryptocurrency article. This is icanhearyou as Ladislav said and also a bit of WP:WL added on top. Give it a rest. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There's so many messages because you all keep deleting edits and we have to discuss it. What type of argument is this anyway? I guess every reply I make to you all is a new message now? Huh? HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Summarizing:

Below is a summary of the arguments made in the discussion above:

Arguments against the edit stating that Vitalik created "Ethereum which is the most actively used and second largest cryptocurrency by market cap" made by Ladislav Mecir and Jtbobwaysf:

• It is WP:PROMO: This is the reason why the edit was deleted. Jtbobwaysf states that 'rankings' on Wikipedia are promotional in itself.
• It is not relevant: This information relates to Ethereum and doesn't need to be in the current Vitalik article.
• It is not cited properly
• It would be difficult to keep the article up-to-date if this information changes: Jtbobwaysf has put forth this argument.

No compromise on the edit has been made by Ladislav Mecir or Jtbobwaysf beside complete deletion.

Arguments for the edit stating that Vitalik created "Ethereum which is the most actively used and second largest cryptocurrency by market cap" made by HocusPocus00:

• It explains notability and is therefore relevant: This information shows why Vitalik is notable. A lot of people coming to this article might not be familiar with Vitalik and it is helpful information to explain why Vitalik is important.
• It is cited by RS's in a NPOV: This Bloomberg cite says Ethereum is the most actively used, and this Fortune cite says it's the second largest cryptocurrency. These facts are non-controversial and a dime a dozen.
• It is not WP:PROMO: In response to the deletion of the information: it has not been explained how this statement is an advertisement, opinion or advocacy other than essentially Jtbobwaysf's saying he just feels like it is promotional in itself. The fact that ETH is the second largest and most actively used blockchain are facts. It is not an opinion or advertisement.
• It would not be difficult to keep the article up to date: This is like arguing "Who is going to monitor the Donald Trump article and update it when he is not the current President of the United States?" Wikipedia of course covers current events. When the information changes, editors edit based on RS's.
• The deletion of information was in violation of Wiki policy: Removal of sourced edits made in a neural narrative is disruptive to the article. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive
• Problematic editors are removing edits on this article: Jtbobwaysf has a very similar history elsewhere on Wikipedia of deleting cited edits, bullying folks when they restore them (warning me on my Talk page) and has been topic banned for this conduct. It appears s/he is repeating this again. See Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos. It appears s/he is now targeting well sourced edits related to alternate cryptocurrencies (anything beside Bitcoin).

A compromise was made by HocusPocus00 to add typical WP:ASOF language to the information which was rejected by Jtbobwaysf and not responded to by Ladislav Mecir.

If I missed anything or you would like to add any additional comments, please reply below. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You missed WP:BLUDGEON. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to end this for a week now with compromises. But noted to your list of arguments. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

David Gerard and MER-C have already been pinged so I won't bother them again (but feel free to make a decision if you all would like). I'll give others a day or two to weigh in if they so choose. After that if no consensus is reached, I'll raise to WP:DRN. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think DRN would be a good idea. You and I have both now pinged a couple of admins and they dont seem interest, maybe just a trivial content dispute in their eyes. Maybe someone on DRN will have more interest and we can also discuss the issue of adding rankings on a large number of articles, as you are advocating for that. Maybe someone from the stocks world of articles has a solution or approach for this, I guess it has been discussed before (eg what enterprise software is #3, or what enterprise sw has #4 market cap)... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad we could reach agreement about something :) HocusPocus00 (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This "Summary" is completely ignoring the points made. I do not want to repeat myself, see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've reviewed each of your posts in good faith and I'm not sure what I'm missing. If you think something was overlooked and don't want to repost it here, that is fine. I can provide a link to this entire Talk section if it goes to WP:DRN. HocusPocus00 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir:, @Jtbobwaysf:: This has been posted to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Vitalik_Buterin HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

@HocusPocus00:, I would recommend that you withdraw the dispute resolution request as this looks like a straightforward content dispute where there is already consensus that the wording you want to add should be removed. You're quite a new user, and it's easy to see why you are having difficulty following the reasoning of the other users involved in this discussion, but in the context of the project guidelines they are correct. It looks like you've all been civil to one another so far, and it would be better to move on and not waste any more time on this. Deb (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Should he be called a Russian-Canadian?

He was born in Russia and lived there until he was 6. He does not appear to have repudiated being Russian at any stage, and has had dealings with the Russian crypto community. Also, what of his recent acquisition of a Montenegro passport? IrishStephen (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there WP:RS for the Montenegro passport? Next, is the Russian-Canadian moniker the way we dual nationality? Not sure what the policy on this is. Do we have RS for this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

RS seem to often refer to him as such [4][5][6]. I don't know for sure about the status of his citizenship though. There is also MOS:CONTEXTBIO. Mellk (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I support your argument as stated. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

A seperate chapter on his pro-Ukrainian cryptophilanthropy?

I was wondering whether one could add a small seperate chapter on his efforts to aid Ukraine with crypto during the current conflict. I could maybe muster up some sources for that, but I'm not sure whether the active contributors on this article would like to help or would even want that. Any opinions? JasonKryptonite (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have sources for it, you dont need the permission of other editors. To use a crypto term, wikipedia is permissionless. Please find top shelf sources, such as fortune.com, wsj, nyt, bloomberg, etc. We are not using contributor sources (eg some of forbes), nor are we using any cyrpto sites such as coindesk or theblock, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I have trimmed some of this content, although unless better sources can be found, more should be removed. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, so the significance of any donation of money or cryptocurrency must be contextualized by a reliable, independent source. Tweets, blogs, and press releases are a form of public relations and are not sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)