Talk:Kim Dotcom

Kim Schmitz is a convicted fraud - how about lessing out his claims and writing about the facts?

---

judging from the articles I read about Schmitz he rarely (never?) actually hacked anything important, he merely enjoys creating a hype/buzz around him to get investor money. (clem 23:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC))

Yes, you are right. See http://www.aquanuke.co.uk/article289.html Only the airport story seems to be true, but every TV team who tried the same in the nineties had success, so it is not a really big deal. --195.14.254.168 06:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

infamous hacker

How do you get an infamous hacker, when you personally never hacked anything? --195.14.198.75 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"biased links"

No comments of links in text, please. Either the links are in the article or not. --195.14.198.75 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

sorry. it's just that somebody deleted the links, I put them back in and thought since the other guy must have reasons to remove them, I put kind of a "warning sign" on them. (clem 08:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC))

TheRegister has a "bad mouth", but it is one of the most reliable sources on the topic. But one article is enough. --195.14.198.75 09:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"just for fun"

Who said "just for fun"? Nobody? Why are there citation marks? --195.14.198.75 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

interesting sources

• http://www.contramotion.com/updates/materials/kimble-19980323LGMUC.txt
• http://www.welt.de/data/2002/01/22/396775.html?prx=1

Kim Schmitz is deleting facts

User:69.57.152.12 aka Kim Schmitz has deleted some facts several times. --195.14.254.210 12:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does Trendax use AI at all?

Does Trendax use artificial intelligence? Does Trenday even exist? The website has not been updated for two years, and back then Kimble himself said, Trendax would not work.

Read the disclaimer on the site:

Important Notice:

The automated trading system of Trendax Limited is not available to retail clients.

Fund products are not currently available, and will not be marketed until such time that appropriate licenses are obtained.

Our offer to invest in Trendax Limited is not available to investors in Hong Kong.

Thank you for visiting our website.

What does this mean? Have a look at this thread - trendax.com could have been made up the same way. The web designers put some shiny buzzwords on the screen - and that's all. There is no operating business, only a website. --145.254.137.107 19:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Schmitz declares "Wikipedia War"

http://board.ultimaterally.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1467

That was all they got? Pretty lame... --81.173.131.108 11:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Kims future

I beliefe that the Trendax project and all other ideas he had where not finished or even realized at all because of a lack of knowledge and professionalism. He has an idea, just starts without thinking too much and afterwards he gets caught by the reality. This may also happen to the Ultimate Rally. He started with a great idea, but underestimates the effort, the experience and the structure that is needed in order to successfully realize such a project.

I am not sure whether he is a good team player. If he is one, he would need somebody who's doing all the project management for him. He's quite good in marketing and has enough courage to start with innovative ideas.

In Germany he did a lot of gratuitous bullshit, like annoucing his suicide or failing with the help for "Let's buy it". That's why many Germans don't like him. On the international stage he's still unknown and has the possibility to create a positive image. If he succeeds with his Ulitmate Rally he could make it. If he fails again, he'll be probably out forever, I guess.

my thoughts

this guy is clearly a pussy, and i don't use the word lightly. why is his face featured in such an un-wikipedia-like way? on one hand it offends me as a poorly presented article, on the other hand, the haphazard, lackadaisical layout strikes me as appropriate for such a bum-of-the-internet. let him continue to flaunt his misguided excesses; his fat ass is a pristine example of money failing to buy everything. everyone reading this article should doubt everything that gurgles forth from his mouth, and rest assured that some doofus selling his own name as a hardly proven investment interest is about as productive as my nocturnal genital rubbings. 69.232.212.173 12:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like that he's out. :-)

NPOV and history

There seem to be a lot of views on this guy. I heard about him for the first time today. Anyway, try to keep your NPOV and skip the derogatory wordings, i.e. "unethical" and "obese". In addition, the article is not in order and does not tell the whole story. Where did he get his money from in the first place? What was the exact hacking activity. What money is he living off now? --86.128.223.127 00:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many rumors about his sources of money. Only Kim Schmitz himself could clarify this points - but I probably would not believe a word of it. --81.173.164.95 06:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Rally "sold"

A message from Kim Schmitz regarding the Ultimate Rally

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=64807&page=3&highlight=kimble

The shareholders of UR have decided to sell the UR business to a US based events company. Its their goal to take our business plan and make it happen in 2007. I am departing the street racing scene for personal reasons.

I am looking back at a 10 year 200mph history and I don't regret a thing. Driving from Munich to Monaco in 4:45 or from Munich to Hamburg in 3:55 are just some of my records which will probably stand forever. Not to mention the 3000 miles of Gumball which I finished fastest twice. I am 32 years old now and after 1 million adrenaline kicks its time to move to bigger things.

Keep an eye out on this website for the new UR in 2007. It should be good. Its likely that this forum is closing soon. It was fun around here and I made a lot of new friends. All the best to all of you.

Kimble, Quake 2 and Barrysworld

Is it worth mentioning that Kimble was quite well known for cheating and disruptive behaviour (camping in almost impossible to reach sections on maps with no time limit) in the UK Quake 2 gaming scene (possibly elsewhere)?

Additionally when I was an admin on the Barrysworld servers and banned him for this behaviour he mounted a semi-successful DDoS attack on the then website www.barrysworld.com, which lasted for about 3 days.

He also set up a moderately successful Quake 2 league called "Liga" (originally at www.liga.net, now appears to be a Russian site). The notable aspect of this is that he once lost a game of Quake 2 against a then-famous player "Immortal", and subsequently accused him of cheating and kicked him and his supporters out of the league. (brief archived paragraph from PlanetQuake (see bottom of page))

Wasn't sure if this information was worth including in the article or not? --Durzel 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

only person to have convicted insider trading in Germany

I've just removed the following sentence, as there've been dozens - if not even hundreds - of convictions for insider trading in Germany:
" To date, he remains the only person to ever have been convicted for insider trading in Germany."
For verification see these two cases I found on the quick:
http://www.faz.net/s/RubF3F7C1F630AE4F8D8326AC2A80BDBBDE/Doc~E0C2897FCCC2440D287D68C4FF54934CE~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
http://www.manager-magazin.de/geld/artikel/0,2828,211598,00.html
--Cvdr 11:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Update

The changes that have been incorporated into this entry are done in order to provide a balanced, accurate and current/updated record of Kim.

It is a warts and all overview of his life to date in a format which is easy to read and follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tturner2009 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

This entry does not eliminate any of the colourful facts or criminal background as this pertain to Kim's past.

Please read carefully and you will see this is correct. If not, please let me know.

As a friend of Kim, the purpose of my new entry is to correct misinformation and correct facts. Tturner2009 —Preceding undated comment was added on 09:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

But it is still a WP:POV version of his past. E.g. this is a no-go: "Unfortunately, adverse media attention regarding his past activities meant it was impossible to raise funds to float the company, but Schmitz has since bounced back and is currently active in several Internet businesses while also researching fresh business opportunities." --78.34.4.52 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like all editors to kindly read my more balanced, more informative and above all more accurate entry as it pertains to Kim Schmitz. It contains all the facts of the original entry. Therefore anyone who wishes to make changes to the facts needs to clearly explain why? We are not debating writing style. On the facts, I am happy to engage in discussion, to mitigate any concerns Wikipedia editors/visitors may have. Tturner2009 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"fresh business opportunities" is not a fact. All statements from Kim Schmitz are no facts. You can use thema as long there is a citeable source. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A more balanced version

In the last day there was an edit war about the current and a allegedly more balanced version of the article. As you can see on the top of this discussion page the quality of this article is considered to be relatively low, the article could definitely use a new writeup.

But unfortunately the new version is neither more balanced nor better in any way. E.g. let's compare the first paragraph:

Kim Schmitz aka Kimble (born January 21 1974 in Kiel) is a German self-proclaimed hacker and businessman who has generated much publicity and has been convicted of computer fraud, insider trading and embezzlement.

This version is not very nice. E.g. the part about the self-proclaimed hacker - what does this exactly mean? It has definitely a negative connotation.

Kim Schmitz aka Kimble (born January 21 1974 in Kiel) is best known as Germany's first high-profile hacker, although he has long since ceased hacking and become a successful entrepreneur.

This version sounds more balanced, but it is really not. The self-proclaimed was replaced with high-profile, which has a positive connotation - but not any more information than the first version. This version eliminated the version that Kim Schmitz was actually sentenced several times for serious crimes, which is one of few facts about Kim Schmitz that is without any doubt.

The other changes fall in the same category. This is not an improvement at all, it is a version is nicer to Kim Schmitz.

If you want to improve the article, you need first to get some credible sources and then add the facts to the article. If Kim Schmitz Schmitz "admits" anything is the least relevant fact of all - but you can't use it, if you have not an citeable source. A anonymous Wikipedia user with two accounts is no citeable source. If you just want to change the point of view taken in the article - please don't waste your and our time. To create fake accounts is no way to convince the Wikipedia community.--78.34.4.52 (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously one of the few people from Germany that still hates Kim Schmitz. You're the type that will always continue to put Kim in a bad light. Where are all your sources that defend the old, oudated, and most importantly hateful version? The new version still clearly states that Kim has been concivted ("However, his hacking career came to an end in 1994, when he spent two months in prison before being released pending trial for computer fraud and subsequently convicted four years later."), and it does not leave out any of the old facts. The new version actually adds a lot of new info about Kim (for example about his current life, how he looks at his past etc). That IS called balance, balance that you may question due to the lack of sources, but then where are all the sources of the previous hateful version? Stop the negative focus, it's really not justified. And no, I am not Kim, and no I do not operate multiple accounts. (Alexanderamsterdam (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)).

The sources for the current versions are under references. As I said, your POV is not relevant, facts are. And what you put in the article are no facts, just opionions and rumors. As I already stated, this version is not perfect, but it surely does not qualify as hatefull.

The first paragraph has to summarize the most important facts. The conviction is without any doubt important and without any doubt a fact. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's say it plain and simple. If you just deleted self-proclaimed - I never would have had a problem. But you put high prophile in and the allegedly success of Kim Schmitz today. That's the very definition of WP:POV. As long as you insist on put this POV in and revert without any change, other users will revert it back. If you really want to improve the article I would suggest to discuss your changes first and accept contribution of other users. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator who has dealt with biographies of living individuals before, I've cleaned the article and removed potentially defamatory information that was unsourced. I've left the subsection "Early Career" unsourced with the hope that someone can find citations; it contains no defamatory or potentially defamatory material. In addition, I've restored two subheadings, albeit with some snipping, from this version that were sourced with reliable citations. It is important to note that if content is introduced on a living individual (or any individual) that can be negatively looked upon, it is all but required to provide a reliable source. If not, it stands to be removed immediately without question or delay.

That said, the article shouldn't be all rosy and patronizing. The version that some had restored to contained zero citations. Remember that edit warring is never conductive and can lead to a full-protection on a BLP. seicer | talk | contribs 00:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a more radical approach than I had in mind. Thx for intervening. Now we need some people who help to rebuild the part about his lifestyle and the story of data protect. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

can we use this source?

Many details about the early career of Kim Schmitz can be found in an court document that had been spread in the internet. For example here here. Can we use any of this?

--78.34.4.52 (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

new edit war

After reading through your comments above, you have objected on the high profile and self-proclaimed hacker terms. is there any other material which you do not agree with? We can work together to make this article more accurate and I am willing to co-operate so we can agree to a final version. Lets talk on the talk page first before changing this. thanks.Tturner2009 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have problems with nearly everything you added. I can give some examples:

The hacking community was also infuriated by his habit of making the latest hacking developments public, with his publication of technical details on phone phreaking earning him top spots on the “Most Hated Person” charts in the Worldcharts diskmag for several years.

That is truely an amazing version of the story. If you read these discmags the title "most hated person" came from rumors that Kim Schmitz had denunciated many members of the BBS scene. Since this version is not citeable neither should be in the article.

Unfortunately, adverse media attention regarding his past activities meant it was impossible to raise funds to float the company, but Schmitz has since bounced back and is currently active in several Internet businesses while also researching fresh business opportunities.

Can you name several Internet businesses and give a proper source?

His legal team maintained that this was not insider trading as the information did not come from anybody else and Schmitz had created the business opportunity himself. “I think the outcome would be different in a court of law today as the Internet bubble had just burst at the time, everyone had lost a lot of money and there was so much media attention that I became the scapegoat,” Schmitz maintained.--78.34.4.52 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does this statement come from? Why is that relevant?

Schmitz later conceded he had been young, stupid, naïve and aggressive. “I had no idea about the legal implications of my actions,” he acknowledged. “I hope my mistakes can therefore serve as an example for young entrepreneurs. They should remember one golden rule be careful and always think twice about what you are doing.”

This is a sentence for an autobiography, not an Wikipedia article.

Schmitz, who has also long been a fan of Formula I and organised several big parties for the races in Monaco, now plans to develop a racetrack and is currently scouting potential sites around the world.

Future plans without any details have nothing to do with Wikipedia. He can announce this on his own home page. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in being constructive you can help to rebuild this article according to Wikipedia guidelines. You want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and Wikipedia:No_original_research. This means: you cannot use anything that Kim Schmitz told you, you have to rely on documented facts. And nearly nothing you added to the article qualifies as facts. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting your inadequate version is of ridiculous. "References" have actually to reflect the facts you add to the article - not to list arbitrarily some articles you might like. For example: neither of your sources says anything about Schmitz's marriage or his new plans. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not give your judgement. Those references will be from the Media sources. I am not sure why you would want only negative insertions here. Wikipedia rules are being followed as well. And everything in the revised article is reality and based on facts. Tturner2009 (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I have absolutely no objections against positive facts at all - in fact I have deleted negative facts and added positive ones. How many times will you edit before you read the guidelines? None of your changes is verifiable, neutral or at least formal correct. Play by the rules or don't play at all.

You asked for specific points, I gave you some of them. Still - you insist on ignoring them. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

specific complaints?

Since User:Tturner2009 unfortunately seems to ignore every discussion that points out the fundamental flaws of his revised version - we can change the question:

What are the specific complaints about this version, which is Wikipedia:Verifiability well sourced and certainly much less biased than the previous version. Let's hear your points and we can work out a solution which is more acceptable for all. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the page is locked due to excessive edits. I would like to work with all of the parties and come up with a better version with references and facts which is also acceptable to all. What is the next step, we can do this offline or online.--11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Tturner2009 (talk)

It's simple as that. Answer the following questions: why exactly do you think the current version unacceptable for you? Do you understand why your "revised version" is a violation of several fundamental Wikipedia guidelines? Do you understand why you can't revert it again? --78.34.4.52 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)