Talk:Mark Karpelès

Schools worth mentioning?

Is his middle school and high school education really worth mentioning? Trougnouf (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The two sentences make up half the article at the moment, since there's so little else, but the article was just created, and a paragraph on a biography subject's childhood doesn't seem unreasonable. ––Agyle (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why Not? I'm pretty sure this would be questioned for Obamam, or Bush? Karpeles is going down in history. --151.225.225.63 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Marie

Since it was removed. You will find Karpeles' presumably Catholic middle-name, Marie, listed on sites documenting companies registered in England & Wales. This is information provided to the government to 3rd parties. Also listed in Poland: http://www.imsig.pl/szukaj/osoba,MARK_MARIE_ROBERT,KARPELES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.225.63 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, here: TIBANNE LIMITED. Named as Mr M.M. Karpeles. Danrok (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark's website MagicalTux.net

Mark's twitter page says his personal blog is http://magicaltux.net/

MagicalTux.net has been hacked, as of March 9, 2014.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57620092-93/mt-gox-ceos-blog-hacked-alleged-bitcoin-balances-posted/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/09/hackers-hit-mt-gox-exchanges-ceo-claim-to-publish-evidence-of-fraud/

50.74.152.2 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This person doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia

This person is a f*cking scammer and a criminal. He doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Please delete this page or at least provide information for the crimes he committed. --177.138.178.191 17:52, 12 March 2014‎

Allegations of criminal conduct are not grounds for article deletion. Inclusion of allegations in the article requires citation of a reliable source. Agyle (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are many biographical entries on criminals. Mal7798 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Other sources

These were added to the External links section, but don't seem to fit with the WP:EL guidance (relevant information can be incorporated from news sources into the article). I moved the links here as they could be useful in expanding the article.

• Erosion of Faith Was Death Knell for Mt. Gox by Rachel Abrams Matthew and Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times Dealbook, February 28, 2014
• Apparent Theft at Mt. Gox Shakes Bitcoin World by Nathaniel Popper and Rachel Abrams, The New York Times, February 25, 2014
• Bitcoin's Mt. Gox: A Look at the Man in Charge by Eleanor Warnock and Takashi Mochizuki, The Wall Street Journal, February 28, 2014
• Survival of Bitcoin exchange Mt.Gox in doubt by Jose Pagliery, CNNMoney, February 25, 2014
• Bitcoin: qui est le "Frenchie" Mark Karpelès, patron de MtGox? La Tribune (France), February 28, 2014
• Scandale bitcoin: Mark Karpèles, un "supergeek" français au cœur de l'affaire, 20 Minutes (France), February 28, 2014
• The Inside Story of Mt. Gox, Bitcoin’s $460 Million Disaster by Robert McMillan, Wired Magazine, March 3, 2014
• Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles: 'I Am Still In Japan' by Leo King, Forbes Magazine, February 26, 2014

Agyle (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark Karpeles' real name is not Robert Marie Mark Karpeles

Scribd doesn't seem like a reliable source. 50.74.152.2 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This source calls him Mark Robert Karpeles. http://copainsdavant.linternaute.com/p/mark-robert-karpeles-4285933 I don't know how legitimate this source is because I don't speak/read French. 50.74.152.2 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Different sources call him different things, including many reliable secondary sources that omit the "Marie". The section above called Talk:Mark Karpelès#Marie lists two other sources that contain Marie. I've clarified in the current citation that Ars Technica published the currently cited court documents on Scribd. However, the document itself actually uses the anglicized spelling "Karpeles", as do the two other sources mentioned above, and it's certainly less than ideal citing a primary source like that. "Robert Marie Mark Karpelès" (with an è) doesn't appear in any reliable sources that I've seen; Google's top result is an apparently fake Facebook page in which Karpelès is pictured flipping the bird. Agyle (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claim?

In the second paragraph of "Early Life":

According to DailyTech's Jason Mick, Karpelès was found guilty of a financial computer crime and of money transfer fraud when he was somewhere between 13 and 18 years old. The court gave him a 3 month suspended sentence and no criminal record.

I suppose considering the current situation, this could be relevant, but it really can't be substantiated, it's "hearsay" at best. Yes, perhaps and even probably true, but then again, there's nothing to say it isn't made up out of thin air... Taco Viva (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The attribution in the sentence is incorrect. Mick does not make that claim, he merely quotes a translation of what he says was written by Karpelès. (I.e. Mick claims that Karpelès claims that Karpelès was found guilty). The original tip for the story, according to Mick, was the hacker group Anonymous and a British MP, and many reliable sources reported a week later that other claims of fraud were posted on Karpelès' blog by anonymous hackers. The 2006 post allegedly by Karpelès is not archived by archive.org. Personally I do not think DailyTech is a reliable source with a reputation for checking facts like whether Karpelès is the author, but I'm in the minority on Wikipedia. Gawker was more cautious, saying "Karpeles seems to discuss a past arrest..." (italics mine), stopping short of saying he wrote it, though later in the article did refer to it as "Karpeles' blog post". Gawker also mentions a January article in Le JSL, which said when Karpelès moved from Paris to Japan, "Il quittera la capitale un peu vite, accusé, selon nos informations, de fraude informatique" (translation: "He left the capital a little faster, accused, according to our information, of computer fraud.") Agyle (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement needs better references before it goes in the article. Taco Viva (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle: The 2006 blog post is archived. See and translation.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Certain categories should be deleted

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Karpel%C3%A8s&diff=603234871&oldid=603232306

I deleted the following categories as they are not supported by the Mark Karpelès article content: French fraudsters, Computer criminals. I also deleted the "Financial scandals" category because Karpelès himself is not a "financial scandal."

Taco Viva undid my edit. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; the statements supporting them were formerly in the article, but were removed without removing the categories. While the removal of "financial scandals" is correct (no scandal is mentioned in the article), the rationale is debatable. There are different types of categories; some imply membership (is X a Y?), while some are for a looser association (is X associated with Y, is X involved in Y?). In this case the category doesn't specify what it's for, and people are using it in both ways. In Wikipedia:Category types (a failed proposal), the author describes them as "subject categories" versus "index categories". Agyle (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that no discussion of "financial scandal" is mentioned? It can not possibly be because there has been no discussion of it in the press, nor interested parties publicly suggesting it. It does not need to be "proven" to merit mention in the article - and thus the presence of category. It seems a bit disingenuous to remove this sort of content, almost as if a point of view were being subtly pushed... Nobody is convicting Karpelès "without a trial" but including mention of something that is common discussion in the press. It seems to me that removing the categories is part of the process of white-washing the article. In reality, "common sense" says that some of these categories are relevent, and the supporting content should be returned. It's not like these subjects have not been the focus of numerous articles in well established journals that would certainly satisfy Wikipedia standards of references. We're not talking about content based on blogs or Twitter feeds... Taco Viva (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I missed the last line in the opening post, and didn't realize that the category removals were reverted. WP:CAT says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Maybe removal of text from the article was whitewashing, but the removal of categories is absolutely proper. There is no mention of fraud or scandal in the article.

Taco Viva, I think the lack of coverage about the possibility of fraud by Karpelès at Mt. Gox is due to disinterest from Wikipedia editors, difficulty finding reliable sources, or possibly editors holding out for really good sources (e.g., established newspapers like the WSJ or NYT) as opposed to iffy websites (e.g., Tech Crunch). Coverage about allegations of fraud in France were discussed in the Talk page. Feel free to add material to the article, or suggest useful sources here that someone else may incorporate into the article. ––Agyle (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I'll work on finding acceptable references and write the content. Then we can bring back the categories. Taco Viva (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd interpret those categories to mean convicted, verified or generally accepted criminal/fraudster/scandal, not alleged. A couple WSJ refs alleging fraud on the part of Karpelès: 1 2. Agyle (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Japanese name?

Is it worth adding the version of his name he uses in Japan, in daily life? マルク・カルプレス (Maruku Karupuresu) - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.168.233 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Karpelès. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20140227163844/http://jp.linkedin.com/in/karpeles to http://jp.linkedin.com/in/karpeles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

source- daily beast

Here is a nice RS with a lot of content for the article. [1] Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)